taq_Tfng is contaminated with zgh_Tfng data
I've started a discussion here.
This explains why GlotLID misclassifies zgh as taq, even though it should be easy to tell them apart.
Thank you for the report. To be clear, we are talking about the Tfng script, right?
https://huggingface.co/datasets/cis-lmu/glotlid-corpus/tree/main/v3.1/taq_Tfng
https://huggingface.co/datasets/cis-lmu/glotlid-corpus/tree/main/v3.1/zgh_Tfng
Among these two links, which exact sources have contamination? FLORES, Tatoeba, or NLLB-seed?
Which one should be deleted? What are the alternative sources to add?
Thank you for the report. To be clear, we are talking about the Tfng script, right?
Yes, the latin subset of Tamasheq looks ok.
Among these two links, which exact sources have contamination? FLORES, Tatoeba, or NLLB-seed?
The only source I've identified so far is NLLB-SEED (zgh samples intaq, here). There could be others but it's difficult to determine since I can only see the text, not the source.
Which one should be deleted? What are the alternative sources to add?
If you'd like to fix the issue on your end, you could deduplicate taq based on zgh OLDI-seed data. 4000 out of the 6193 samples are indeed Tamasheq.
So, the zgh part of OLDI is correct? We should just remove those from taq.
So, the zgh part of OLDI is correct? We should just remove those from taq.
Indeed. You're using the FLORES dev set forzgh, which is fine.