Discovering Lexical Gaps Using Embeddings from Multilingual LLMs
Quick Take
A new data-driven framework identifies lexical gaps in multilingual contexts using embeddings from Korean-English bilingual LLMs. The method shows that gap words have weaker semantic alignment, achieving AUCs of 0.81 and 0.76 for Korean-to-English and English-to-Korean, respectively, providing a scalable, taxonomy-free approach for lexical gap detection.
Key Points
- Extracted embeddings from Korean-English bilingual LLMs for translation pairs.
- Gap words showed weaker semantic alignment in 94% and 97% of cases.
- Logistic classifiers achieved AUCs of 0.81 and 0.76 for gap detection.
- Identified 18 out of 19 Korean and 26 out of 27 English gap words.
- Provides a language-agnostic method for scalable lexical gap identification.
Article Content
From source RSS / original summaryarXiv:2605. 24310v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Lexical gaps are words that do not exist in certain languages. They pose challenges for building multilingual lexical resources, for machine translation, and for cross-lingual transfer. Existing lexical gap detection relies on human judgments or fixed conceptual taxonomies. We propose a data-driven framework for identifying cross-lingual lexical gaps.
We extracted contextualized embeddings from Korean-English bilingual LLMs for Korean-to-English and English-to-Korean translation pairs. Combinations of LLMs, embedding types, dimensionality, and orthogonal transformations across 100 train-test splits yielded 4000 distinct embedding spaces in each source language. In each space, we computed the semantic similarity between each source word and its nearest neighbor in the target language, and compared their distribution for gap words versus non-gap words.
In 94% (Korean-to-English) and 97% (English-to-Korean) of embedding spaces, gap words showed weaker cross-lingual semantic alignment than non-gap words. Logistic classifiers trained on unaligned embedding spaces can reliably separate gap words from non-gap words, achieving AUCs of 0. 81 (Korean-to-English) and 0. 76 (English-to-Korean) and retrieving 18/19 Korean and 26/27 English gap words. This approach provides a language-agnostic and taxonomy-free method for scalable lexical gap identification.
Reader Mode unavailable (could not extract clean content).
Want this in your inbox every morning?
Daily brief at your local 8am — bilingual EN/中文, free.
More from arXiv cs.CL
See more →Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents?
The reliability of LLM judges for evaluating deep research agents is critically assessed using the REFLECT benchmark.