Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
80 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

CoLI-Machine Learning Approaches for Code-mixed Language Identification at the Word Level in Kannada-English Texts (2211.09847v1)

Published 17 Nov 2022 in cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.CY, and cs.LG

Abstract: The task of automatically identifying a language used in a given text is called Language Identification (LI). India is a multilingual country and many Indians especially youths are comfortable with Hindi and English, in addition to their local languages. Hence, they often use more than one language to post their comments on social media. Texts containing more than one language are called "code-mixed texts" and are a good source of input for LI. Languages in these texts may be mixed at sentence level, word level or even at sub-word level. LI at word level is a sequence labeling problem where each and every word in a sentence is tagged with one of the languages in the predefined set of languages. In order to address word level LI in code-mixed Kannada-English (Kn-En) texts, this work presents i) the construction of code-mixed Kn-En dataset called CoLI-Kenglish dataset, ii) code-mixed Kn-En embedding and iii) learning models using Machine Learning (ML), Deep Learning (DL) and Transfer Learning (TL) approaches. Code-mixed Kn-En texts are extracted from Kannada YouTube video comments to construct CoLI-Kenglish dataset and code-mixed Kn-En embedding. The words in CoLI-Kenglish dataset are grouped into six major categories, namely, "Kannada", "English", "Mixed-language", "Name", "Location" and "Other". The learning models, namely, CoLI-vectors and CoLI-ngrams based on ML, CoLI-BiLSTM based on DL and CoLI-ULMFiT based on TL approaches are built and evaluated using CoLI-Kenglish dataset. The performances of the learning models illustrated, the superiority of CoLI-ngrams model, compared to other models with a macro average F1-score of 0.64. However, the results of all the learning models were quite competitive with each other.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. F. Balouchzahi (1 paper)
  2. M. D. Anusha (1 paper)
  3. G. Sidorov (1 paper)
  4. H. L. Shashirekha (2 papers)
Citations (15)