Cross-lingual transfer learning enables NLP for low-resource languages by leveraging labeled data from higher-resource sources, yet existing comparisons of source language selection strategies do not control for total training data, confounding language selection effects with data quantity effects. We introduce Budget-Xfer, a framework that formulates multi-source cross-lingual transfer as a budget-constrained resource allocation problem. Given a fixed annotation budget B, our framework jointly optimizes which source languages to include and how much data to allocate from each. We evaluate four allocation strategies across named entity recognition and sentiment analysis for three African target languages (Hausa, Yoruba, Swahili) using two multilingual models, conducting 288 experiments. Our results show that (1) multi-source transfer significantly outperforms single-source transfer (Cohen's d = 0.80 to 1.98), driven by a structural budget underutilization bottleneck; (2) among multi-source strategies, differences are modest and non-significant; and (3) the value of embedding similarity as a selection proxy is task-dependent, with random selection outperforming similarity-based selection for NER but not sentiment analysis.
Figures & tables
Strategy
Selection
Allocation
All-from-Best
Top 1 by sim
Entire budget
Top-K-Prop.
Top K by sim
Proportional to sim
Random-K
K random
Equal split
Diversity-Aware
Greedy diverse K
Proportional to sim
Table 1. Allocation strategies. K=5 for all multi-source strategies.
Low (10K)
High (15K)
Strategy
Hau
Yor
Swa
Avg
Hau
Yor
Swa
Avg
All-Best
.643
.526
.698
.623
.635
.504
.688
.609
T5-Prop
.689
.550
.743
.660
.701
.566
.733
.666
Rand-5
.706
.546
.801
.684
.713
.564
.783
.686
Div-Aw
.716
.490
.790
.665
.711
.493
.779
.661
Table 2. NER results (F1, Serengeti). Best per column in bold.
Low (5K)
High (10K)
Strategy
Hau
Yor
Swa
Avg
Hau
Yor
Swa
Avg
All-Best
.199
.196
.553
.316
.262
.208
.553
.341
T5-Prop
.570
.466
.469
.502
.529
.418
.485
.478
Rand-5
.542
.347
.373
.421
.548
.355
.420
.441
Div-Aw
.574
.428
.505
.502
.550
.414
.518
.494
Table 3. Sentiment results (weighted F1, Serengeti). Best per column in bold.
Comparison
Task-Bud.
n
Δ
95% CI
p
d
Single vs Multi
NER-L
9
+.038
[+.018,+.058]
.003**
+1.43
(All-Best vs
NER-H
9
+.057
[+.035,+.079]
.000***
+1.98
T5-Prop)
Snt-L
9
+.185
[+.019,+.351]
.033*
+0.86
Snt-H
9
+.137
[+.005,+.269]
.044*
+0.80
Std vs Diverse
NER-L
9
+.005
[ − .035,+.045]
.777
+0.10
(T5-Prop vs
NER-H
9
− .006
[ − .052,+.041]
.793
− 0.09
Table 4. Key pairwise comparisons (paired t -tests, Serengeti). Positive Δ favors the second strategy.
Task
Bud.
Serengeti
AfroXLMR
NER
Low
Rand. > Div. > T5-P
T5-P > Rand. > Div.
NER
High
Rand. > T5-P > Div.
T5-P > Rand. > Div.
Sent.
Low
Div. > T5-P > Rand.
Div. > T5-P > A-Best
Sent.
High
Div. > T5-P > Rand.
Div. > T5-P > Rand.
Table 5. Cross-model strategy rankings (top 3). The competitive set is consistent despite different top-1 picks.