# dzNLP at NADI 2024 Shared Task: Multi-Classifier Ensemble with Weighted Voting and TF-IDF Features

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.13608 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.13608/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 6 of its 10 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Jul 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [NADI 2020: The First Nuanced Arabic Dialect Identification Shared Task](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.11334/) (2020)
- [NADI 2021: The Second Nuanced Arabic Dialect Identification Shared Task](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.08466/) (2021)
- [NADI 2023: The Fourth Nuanced Arabic Dialect Identification Shared Task](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.16117/) (2023)
- [NADI 2022: The Third Nuanced Arabic Dialect Identification Shared Task](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09582/) (2022)
- [NADI 2024: The Fifth Nuanced Arabic Dialect Identification Shared Task](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.04910/) (2024)
- [USTHB at NADI 2023 shared task: Exploring Preprocessing and Feature Engineering Strategies for Arabic Dialect Identification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.10536/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This paper presents the contribution of our dzNLP team to the NADI 2024 shared task, specifically in Subtask 1 - Multi-label Country-level Dialect Identification (MLDID) (Closed Track). We explored various configurations to address the challenge: in Experiment 1, we utilized a union of n-gram analyzers (word, character, character with word boundaries) with different n-gram values; in Experiment 2, we combined a weighted union of Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) features with various weights; and in Experiment 3, we implemented a weighted major voting scheme using three classifiers: Linear Support Vector Classifier (LSVC), Random Forest (RF), and K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN). Our approach, despite its simplicity and reliance on traditional machine learning techniques, demonstrated competitive performance in terms of F1-score and precision. Notably, we achieved the highest precision score of 63.22% among the participating teams. However, our overall F1 score was approximately 21%, significantly impacted by a low recall rate of 12.87%. This indicates that while our models were highly precise, they struggled to recall a broad range of dialect labels, highlighting a critical area for improvement in handling diverse dialectal variations.