Fine-tuning and testing a multilingual large language model is a challenge for low-resource languages (LRLs) since it is an expensive process. While previous studies have predicted the performance of natural language processing (NLP) tasks using machine learning methods, they primarily focus on high-resource languages, overlooking LRLs and shifts across domains. Focusing on LRLs, we investigate three factors (the size of the fine-tuning corpus, domain similarity between fine-tuning and testing corpora, and language similarity between source and target languages), which can potentially impact the model performance by using classical regression models. Our results indicate that domain similarity has the most important impact on predicting the performance of Machine Translation models.

Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods are increasingly vital in adapting large-scale pre-trained language models for diverse tasks, offering a balance between adaptability and computational efficiency. They are important in Low-Resource Language (LRL) Neural Machine Translation (NMT) to enhance translation accuracy with minimal resources. However, their practical effectiveness varies significantly across different languages. We conducted comprehensive empirical experiments with varying LRL domains and sizes to evaluate the performance of 8 PEFT methods with in total of 15 architectures using the SacreBLEU score. We showed that 6 PEFT architectures outperform the baseline for both in-domain and out-domain tests and the Houlsby+Inversion adapter has the best performance overall, proving the effectiveness of PEFT methods.

In the pursuit of supporting more languages around the world, tools that characterize properties of languages play a key role in expanding the existing multilingual NLP research. In this study, we focus on a widely used typological knowledge base, URIEL, which aggregates linguistic information into numeric vectors. Specifically, we delve into the soundness and reproducibility of the approach taken by URIEL in quantifying language similarity. Our analysis reveals URIEL’s ambiguity in calculating language distances and in handling missing values. Moreover, we find that URIEL does not provide any information about typological features for 31% of the languages it represents, undermining the reliabilility of the database, particularly on low-resource languages. Our literature review suggests URIEL and lang2vec are used in papers on diverse NLP tasks, which motivates us to rigorously verify the database as the effectiveness of these works depends on the reliability of the information the tool provides.