Cross-lingual NER Transfer Efficiency with Budget-Xfer: Source Language Embedding Model Comparisons
Abstract
Abstract: Cross-lingual transfer learning enables NLP for low-resource languages by leveraging labeled data from higher-resource sources, yet existing comparisons of source language selection strategies do not control for total training data, confounding language selection effects with data quantity effects. We introduce Budget-Xfer, a framework that formulates multi-source cross-lingual transfer as a budget-constrained resource allocation problem. Given a fixed annotation budget B, our framework jointly optimizes which source languages to include and how much data to allocate from each. We evaluate fou
Research Question
How does the choice of source language embedding models (e.g., multilingual BERT vs. language-specific models) affect the efficiency and accuracy of Budget-Xfer in cross-lingual NER transfer, as evaluated by F1 score and training time on low-resource African languages?
Verification Level
| Paper level | L2, Source-grounded claims | |
| Source-grounded claims | 8 | |
| Claim record source | parsed source sections |
Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.
Truth-Engine Gate Verdict
| Status | Verified | |
| Gate | Gate 2 — Verification (formal proof or sandbox reproduction) | |
| Reason | Sealed-sandbox formula repro: Computed 1.3900000000000001 matches expected 1.39 (tolerance=5.0%). | |
| Evaluated | 2026-06-23T01:42:29.869953+00:00 |
This record has passed Gate 2: a Lean4 proof source type-checks, or a sealed-sandbox run reproduced the reported results within the stated tolerance. A reproducible artifact (proof source or repro script and results) is attached to this record. 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
| Tier | Flagship candidate | |
| Basis | Review 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
| Status | CURRENT |
| Correction count | 0 |
| Manifest contract | paper-manifest-v1.1 |
| Correction contract | correction-record-v1 |
Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.
Provenance
| Publisher | Assignee Research |
| Public provenance | L4, External archival record |
| Report artifact | Available |
| External record | Registered |
| Claim lineage | 8 aggregate source-grounded claims |
| Review method | Automated multi-reviewer assessment |
| Quality guide | How to read scores, claims, manifests, and evidence links |
| Provenance contract | source-provenance-v1 |
| Note | Machine-generated synthesis of existing literature. Not primary research. |