Paper Reading AI Learner

How Many Labels Does a Language Need? Annotation Budgets and Cross-Lingual Pooling for African-Language Text Classification

2026-09-29 15:54:30
Bhanu Prakash Vangala, Sowmya Guda, Navya Vangala

Abstract

Every text classifier for an African language begins with a budgeting question: how many labelled examples are needed, and can labels from other African languages stand in for them? We answer both questions empirically for 28 language-task pairs, news topic classification in 16 languages (MasakhaNEWS) and tweet sentiment in 12 languages (AfriSenti), using a character n-gram linear model that trains in seconds on two CPU cores with no pretrained weights and no accelerator. Monolingual learning curves at budgets from 25 to several thousand labels show that topic classification reaches 90\% of its full-data macro-F1 with about 400 labels in the median language, while sentiment is still improving at the full training size in 11 of 12 languages and needs thousands of labels. Pooling the full training data of the other languages in the benchmark is worth a great deal at small budgets and nothing at large ones: at 25 target labels it adds 0.20 macro-F1 on average for news (up to 0.43 for Lingala) and 0.08 for sentiment, the gain decays to zero by 800 labels, and at full size pooling hurts in 9 of 16 and 8 of 12 languages. Twenty-five target labels plus pooled data match what 100 to 400 monolingual labels achieve for most news languages. A complete zero-shot transfer matrix shows that transfer without any target labels recovers a median of only 13\% (news) and 4\% (sentiment) of the gap between a majority-class predictor and the in-language model, with the exceptions explained by shared script (Amharic and Tigrinya), shared lexicon (English and Nigerian Pidgin, the Arabic dialects), or a shared label prior rather than by language family. We release code that regenerates every number from the public benchmark files and translate the results into concrete annotation guidance for teams building African-language classifiers without GPUs.

Abstract (translated)

URL

https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.37882

PDF

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.37882.pdf


Tags
3D Action Action_Localization Action_Recognition Activity Adversarial Agent Attention Autonomous Bert Boundary_Detection Caption Chat Classification CNN Compressive_Sensing Contour Contrastive_Learning Deep_Learning Denoising Detection Dialog Diffusion Drone Dynamic_Memory_Network Edge_Detection Embedding Embodied Emotion Enhancement Face Face_Detection Face_Recognition Facial_Landmark Few-Shot Gait_Recognition GAN Gaze_Estimation Gesture Gradient_Descent Handwriting Human_Parsing Image_Caption Image_Classification Image_Compression Image_Enhancement Image_Generation Image_Matting Image_Retrieval Inference Inpainting Intelligent_Chip Knowledge Knowledge_Graph Language_Model LLM Matching Medical Memory_Networks Multi_Modal Multi_Task NAS NMT Object_Detection Object_Tracking OCR Ontology Optical_Character Optical_Flow Optimization Person_Re-identification Point_Cloud Portrait_Generation Pose Pose_Estimation Prediction QA Quantitative Quantitative_Finance Quantization Re-identification Recognition Recommendation Reconstruction Regularization Reinforcement_Learning Relation Relation_Extraction Represenation Represenation_Learning Restoration Review RNN Robot Salient Scene_Classification Scene_Generation Scene_Parsing Scene_Text Segmentation Self-Supervised Semantic_Instance_Segmentation Semantic_Segmentation Semi_Global Semi_Supervised Sence_graph Sentiment Sentiment_Classification Sketch SLAM Sparse Speech Speech_Recognition Style_Transfer Summarization Super_Resolution Surveillance Survey Text_Classification Text_Generation Time_Series Tracking Transfer_Learning Transformer Unsupervised Video_Caption Video_Classification Video_Indexing Video_Prediction Video_Retrieval Visual_Relation VQA Weakly_Supervised Zero-Shot