Wolof is spoken by 23M people, mostly in Senegal, but remains weakly supported by open-weight language models, while API models raise cost, governance, and sovereignty constraints for local deployments. In this paper, we present 0.6B-14B open-weight models adapted to Wolof through instruction tuning, preference alignment, and model merging. After presenting the pipeline and data, extensive experiments on 63~public and in-house tasks show good performance on Wolof understanding and generation while remaining effective on other languages and cross-lingual skills, with the 8B and 14B models being particularly competitive with substantially larger commercial systems. The models are currently being evaluated in internal customer-care pilots and are publicly available at https://huggingface.co/collections/Orange/wolof-lm .
Figures & tables
Dataset source
Samples
Tokens
Lang.
N. turns
Biling.
Alwaly FR → WO
91K
5.0M
FR/WO
Single
Alwaly WO → FR
91K
5.0M
WO/FR
Single
Total
182K
10.0M
Translated general
Alpaca
52K
10.4M
WO
Single
Dolly-15k
15K
4.4M
WO
Single
SAMSum
15K
4.0M
WO
Single
Table 1: Training data. WO, FR, and EN stand for Wolof, French, and English, resp.. Turns are user-assistant pairs of messages (+ optional system message).
Model
Overall
Correctness
Formatting
Wolof quality
Gemini-2.5-flash
1112 (.67)
1104 (.66)
1072 (.61)
1066 (.60)
Gemini-2.5-pro
1093 (.64)
1082 (.63)
1090 (.64)
1062 (.60)
Wolof-Qwen3-8B
1051 (.57)
1035 (.55)
1030 (.54)
1058 (.59)
Oolel-v0.1
1002 (.48)
994 (.48)
1030 (.54)
1038 (.55)
Qwen3-8B
742 (.14)
785 (.18)
777 (.17)
777 (.16)
Table 4: Human evaluation Elo scores and win probability by criterion. The Wolof quality column excludes tasks whose expected output is English or French or a classification label.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 1: Aggregate scores as a function of model size. Orange squares denote our Wolof-adapted models. Circles denote unadapted baselines, and diamonds denote Wolof-aware models from the literature. Commercial API systems are shown using purely indicative, prospectively estimated parameter ranges based on unofficial online information, rather than vendor-confirmed specifications.
Dataset
Split
Examples
Tokens
Avg Len
Language
Type
Translated General Instruction (Wolof)
Alpaca (Wolof)
Train
51,939
10,420,068
200.6
Wolof
Single turn
Validation
30
6,456
215.2
Wolof
Single turn
Dolly-15k (Wolof)
Train
14,985
4,352,286
290.4
Wolof
Single turn
Validation
30
9,723
324.1
Wolof
Single turn
SAMSum (Wolof)
Train
14,696
4,006,869
272.7
Wolof
Single turn
Appendix
Table 5: Dataset statistics by split. Avg Len is the average number of tokens per example. Wolof-containing data (monolingual and bilingual) accounts for approximately 90% of training examples.
Category
Details
Hardware
Single node; 2 × NVIDIA H100 80GB and H200 140GB GPUs
Training duration
3 epochs; a few hours to a few days depending on model and corpus size
Large language models (LLMs) have become an essential tool for natural language processing and artificial intelligence in general. Current open-source models are primarily trained on English texts, resulting in poorer performance on less-resourced languages and cultures. We present a set of methodological approaches necessary for the successful adaptation of an LLM to a less-resourced language, and demonstrate them using the Slovene language. We present GaMS3-12B, a generative model for Slovene with 12 billion parameters, and demonstrate that it is the best-performing open-source model for Slovene within its parameter range. We adapted the model to the Slovene language using three-stage continual pre-training of the Gemma 3 model, followed by two-stage supervised fine-tuning (SFT). We trained the model on a combination of 140B Slovene, English, Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian pretraining tokens, and over 200 thousand English and Slovene SFT examples. We evaluate GaMS3-12B on the Slovenian-LLM-Eval datasets, English-to-Slovene translation, and the Slovene LLM arena. We show that the described model outperforms 12B Gemma 3 across all three scenarios and performs comparably to much larger commercial GPT-4o in the Slovene LLM arena, achieving a win rate of over 60 %.
Domen Vreš, Tjaša Arčon, Timotej Petrič +3
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Computer and Information Science, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Intent classification is a core component of task-oriented dialogue systems, yet practitioners have limited systematic guidance for selecting deployable open-weight language models under compute, latency, and robustness constraints. We present a systematic zero-shot evaluation of 41 open-weight language models spanning 15 families and the 135M--9B parameter range across eight English single-label intent-classification datasets. A ninth dataset, ATIS, uses five labeled demonstrations and is reported as an auxiliary five-shot result. The evaluation includes standard benchmarks, a large-scale voice-assistant corpus, and production-derived e-commerce datasets. Beyond exact-match accuracy, we analyze confidence calibration, robustness to realistic input perturbations, statistical reliability of model rankings, deployment efficiency, and benchmark saturation. Our results show that instruction-tuned 3B models can outperform several evaluated 7B base models, that differences among leading models on MASSIVE are statistically indistinguishable under pairwise McNemar tests, and that widely used benchmarks such as SNIPS have become saturated and no longer meaningfully discriminate among current open-weight models. Instruction tuning's effect on confidence calibration is inconsistent rather than uniformly harmful. These findings provide practical guidance for selecting and evaluating open-weight language models for intent classification.
Parishruthi Ganesh, Gerry Dozier, Cheryl Seals
Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering Auburn University Auburn, Alabama, USA
Large language model safety evaluation remains heavily English-centered, leaving low-resource languages under-measured even when models are deployed globally. We evaluate four open-weight instruction-tuned models on SomaliBench v0, a native-author-verified benchmark of 100 harmful-intent prompts paired across English and Somali. Each of Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, Gemma-2-9B-Instruct, Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct, and Aya-23-8B is run locally with temperature 0 and the same English "helpful, harmless, and honest" (HHH) system prompt. A pinned Claude Sonnet snapshot (claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929) classifies each response as refused, complied, or unclear; the native author spot-checks a stratified 80-row sample. We find large English-to-Somali refusal gaps for all four models: Llama-3.1-8B (0.90; 95% bootstrap CI [0.85, 0.96]), Aya-23-8B (0.75 [0.67, 0.83]), Qwen-2.5-7B (0.69 [0.59, 0.78]), and Gemma-2-9B (0.38 [0.27, 0.49]). For three models, the dominant Somali non-refusal mode is not fluent harmful compliance but unclear output: empty, wrong-language, or incoherent generations. The native verification spot-check achieves 100% agreement with the judge (Cohen's kappa = 1.00) on the 80 sampled rows. We report aggregate refusal rates, category gaps, and reliability statistics only; raw model generations are retained locally and are not released.