**Cross-lingual Transfer Robustness in Low-Resource African NER with Script Variation**
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
What is the impact of script variation on the robustness of cross-lingual transfer learning for Named Entity Recognition in low-resource African languages as measured by F1 scores on the MasakhaNER dataset?
Verification Level
| Paper level | L2, Source-grounded claims | |
| Source-grounded claims | 11 | |
| 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 | Falsified | |
| Gate | Gate 2 — Verification (formal proof or sandbox reproduction) | |
| Reason | [Gate 3 RED-TEAM FALSIFIED] avg_attack_score=6.8/10. COUNTEREXAMPLE_HUNTER(8.5):The formula script does not actually verify the claim about the robustness of cr; CITATION_AUDITOR(8.5):The formula script only verifies a trivial derived quantity (the count of langua; REPLICATION_ATTACKER(3.5):The script verifies a trivial derived quantity (count of languages) rather than | |
| Evaluated | 2026-06-27T09:21:26.693574+00:00 |
A claim in this record was tested against Gate 2 and failed: a counterexample was found, a proof did not type-check, or a reproduction attempt did not match the reported results. Evidence for the failure 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 | DOI grade | |
| Basis | Review score and verified-claim count meet DOI-grade public quality 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 | 11 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. |