Index |  Research ▾  |  Verification ▾  | About
SRCH:B0DECC70

Performance comparison of cross-lingual NER models via teacher-student learning and few-shot LLMs on XTREME-R

Submitted: 14 July 2026
Review score: 8.50/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Gate status: Unverified
Quality tier: Flagship candidate
Verified claims: 18
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21349495

Abstract

Abstract: This paper evaluates Few-Shot Prompting with Large Language Models for Named Entity Recognition (NER). Traditional NER systems rely on extensive labeled datasets, which are costly and time-consuming to obtain. Few-Shot Prompting or in-context learning enables models to recognize entities with minimal examples. We assess state-of-the-art models like GPT-4 in NER tasks, comparing their few-shot performance to fully supervised benchmarks. Results show that while there is a performance gap, large models excel in adapting to new entity types and domains with very limited data. We also explore the e

Research Question

How does the performance of cross-lingual NER models trained via teacher-student learning compare to few-shot prompting of large language models (LLMs) on the XTREME-R benchmark, measured by F1 score and inference latency?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims18
Claim record sourceparsed source sections

Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.

Truth-Engine Gate Verdict

StatusUnverified
GateGate 2 — Verification (formal proof or sandbox reproduction)
ReasonPublished before the Gate 2 verification pipeline was activated (2026-06-10). No formal proof or sandbox reproduction has been attempted for this record.

This record has not completed Gate 2 of the verification pipeline (a type-checked Lean4 proof for mathematical claims, or a sealed-sandbox reproduction for empirical claims). It is a literature synthesis only. VERIFIED requires an attached reproducible artifact (Lean4 proof source, or repro script and results) before this status can be set; it is not derived from review score or claim count.

Quality Tier

TierFlagship candidate
BasisReview score, verified-claim count, and public artifact coverage meet flagship-candidate thresholds.

Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.

Quality Dimensions

Evidence strength MEDIUM
Citation grounding MEDIUM
Uncertainty disclosure MEDIUM
Reproducibility status HIGH

Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.

Correction Record

StatusCURRENT
Correction count0
Manifest contractpaper-manifest-v1.1
Correction contractcorrection-record-v1

Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.

Provenance

PublisherAssignee Research
Public provenanceL4, External archival record
Report artifactAvailable
External recordRegistered
Claim lineage18 aggregate source-grounded claims
Review methodAutomated multi-reviewer assessment
Quality guideHow to read scores, claims, manifests, and evidence links
Provenance contractsource-provenance-v1
NoteMachine-generated synthesis of existing literature. Not primary research.