MultiIdiom: A Multilingual Idiom Dataset with Span Annotations across Seven Typologically Diverse Languages
Dataset paperIn preparation
Introduces MultiIdiom itself: how the 112,317-example, 14,505-idiom, seven-language corpus was built — a six-stage LLM-assisted pipeline that generates sense inventories from Wiktionary seeds, labels idiomaticity and sociolinguistic metadata, and expands into morphologically varied example sentences with character-level spans. Argues the dataset is the first public Telugu idiom-detection resource with in-context idiomaticity and span labels, one of few Spanish resources pairing sense definitions with in-context examples, and the first span-annotated benchmark spanning Indo-European, Dravidian, and Austronesian language families in one dataset.
Not yet submitted, so there is nothing to cite here. The dataset below is published and carries its own DOI — cite that in the meantime.
IdiomBERT: A Joint Multilingual Benchmark for Idiom Span Extraction and Classification, and When Fine-Tuned Models Rival LLMs Zero-Shot
Modeling paperIn preparation
Evaluates the harder, joint version of idiom detection — locating the span and judging idiomaticity together, in one pass, rather than the two treated separately in prior work. Compares eleven systems (mBERT pipeline and joint architectures, a BIO diagnostic, and zero/few-shot GPT-4o, Llama-3.3-70B, and Kimi-k2.5) across five languages plus two held-out zero-shot languages, using MultiIdiom as the benchmark and a single pooled statistical correction across every tested language cell. On silver-standard labels, fine-tuned mBERT significantly outperforms GPT-4o zero-shot on three held-out languages and Llama-3.3-70B on all seven — but on the two languages checked against real human annotation, that advantage does not hold up, so the paper frames its finding as parity with far larger zero-shot models at a fraction of the inference cost, not a proven win on human-verified data. A second part of the paper shows the assumed advantage of QA-style span extraction over BIO tagging is mostly a tokenizer artifact, and proposes scoring joint errors per example rather than by aggregating subtask scores separately, which a prior metric does in a way that overstates joint capability by 20 to 21 points.
Not yet submitted, so there is nothing to cite here. The dataset below is published and carries its own DOI — cite that in the meantime.