# Generative vs. Encoder Models for Multilingual NER: A Comprehensive Empirical Study on Naamapadam

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29959 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.29959/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 1 of its 6 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Towards Leaving No Indic Language Behind: Building Monolingual Corpora, Benchmark and Models for Indic Languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.05409/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Language is humanity's most consequential technology, yet for over a billion speakers across India's twenty-two constitutionally recognised languages, its digital layer remains structurally incomplete. Named Entity Recognition (NER), the foundational step in transforming raw text into machine-interpretable knowledge, has been studied exhaustively for English but remains largely unsolved across most Indic languages. This paper presents a rigorous comparative study of generative and encoder-based neural architectures for NER on all eleven languages of the Naamapadam benchmark. We evaluate five classic model families spanning sequence-to-sequence transformers and multilingual encoders; four decoder-only large language models (LLMs) fine-tuned with LoRA and 4-bit NF4 quantisation; and nine generative models in zero-to-5-shot inference. Under strict CoNLL span-level evaluation, encoder-based models (mBERT and XLM-R, both F1=0.675 on Hindi) substantially outperform every generative architecture in ten of eleven languages, with gaps of 7.5-40 percentage points against the strongest competitor (Gemma-2-2B: avg F1=0.427). The best few-shot result reaches only 28% of the encoder baseline. We identify three language clusters--encoder-dominant, partial-coverage, and failure-zone; and provide actionable deployment guidelines grounded in transfer learning and low-resource NLP principles.