Identifying Open Challenges in Language Identification

Automatic language identification is a core problem of many Natural Language Processing (NLP) pipelines.A wide variety of architectures and benchmarks have been proposed with often near-perfect performance.Although previous studies have focused on certain challenging setups (i.e.cross-domain, short inputs), a systematic comparison is missing.We propose a benchmark that allows us to test for the effect of input size, training data size, domain, number of languages, scripts, and language families on performance.We evaluate five popular models on this benchmark and identify which open challenges remain for this task as well as which architectures achieve robust performance.We find that cross-domain setups are the most challenging (although arguably most relevant), and that number of languages, variety in scripts, and variety in language families have only a small impact on performance.We also contribute practical takeaways: training with 1,000 instances per language and a maximum input length of 100 characters is enough for robust language identification.Based on our findings, we train an accurate (94.41%) multidomain language identification model on 2,034 languages, for which we also provide an analysis of the remaining errors.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.891
Primary Topic
Translation Studies and Practices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Identifying Open Challenges in Language Identification

Rob van der Goot
Translation Studies and Practices
article

Identifying Open Challenges in Language Identification

Rob van der Goot
article en

Abstract

Automatic language identification is a core problem of many Natural Language Processing (NLP) pipelines.A wide variety of architectures and benchmarks have been proposed with often near-perfect performance.Although previous studies have focused on certain challenging setups (i.e.cross-domain, short inputs), a systematic comparison is missing.We propose a benchmark that allows us to test for the effect of input size, training data size, domain, number of languages, scripts, and language families on performance.We evaluate five popular models on this benchmark and identify which open challenges remain for this task as well as which architectures achieve robust performance.We find that cross-domain setups are the most challenging (although arguably most relevant), and that number of languages, variety in scripts, and variety in language families have only a small impact on performance.We also contribute practical takeaways: training with 1,000 instances per language and a maximum input length of 100 characters is enough for robust language identification.Based on our findings, we train an accurate (94.41%) multidomain language identification model on 2,034 languages, for which we also provide an analysis of the remaining errors.

Dublin City University (IE), IT University of Copenhagen (DK)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 75%
Translation Studies and Practices
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Identifying Open Challenges in Language Identification — Rob van der Goot · (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS