AyutthayaAlpha: A Thai-Latin Script Transliteration Transformer

Attapol Rutherford; Davor Lauc; Weerin Wongwarawipatr

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 14 references

AyutthayaAlpha: A Thai-Latin Script Transliteration Transformer

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A from-scratch, four-layer byte-level transformer, AyutthayaAlpha-VerySmall, transliterates Thai proper names into Latin script with 83.94% first-token accuracy and 0.0047 character error rate, outperforming its larger counterpart and…

desk verdict A useful applied Thai transliteration system whose data-curation pipeline is the real novelty, but whose 'state-of-the-art' claim is unsupported because no competing system is evaluated on the same test set. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03877 v1 pith:NIPLOT3R submitted 2024-12-05 cs.CL cs.AI

Davor Lauc , Attapol Rutherford , Weerin Wongwarawipatr This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.AI

keywords ThaitransliterationromanizationByT5byte-leveltransformerpropernamessequence-to-sequencerandomforestdatafilteringnaturallanguageprocessing

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that a small, randomly initialized transformer can match expert human judgment on Thai name romanization, a task where official rule-based systems like RTGS fail to capture personal and cultural spelling preferences. The authors build a training set of 1.27 million Thai-Latin name pairs by filtering 66 million automatically generated candidates with a random forest classifier, then train two byte-level ByT5-style models. The smaller model, AyutthayaAlpha-VerySmall, reports 83.94% first-token accuracy, 96.80% any-token accuracy, and 0.0047 character error rate on a held-out expert-annotated evaluation set. If correct, this means a cheap, from-scratch model can outperform both its larger sibling and earlier rule-based and corpus approaches, with direct value for identity databases, cross-lingual search, and data standardization.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a two-model design of byte-level sequence-to-sequence transformers built on the ByT5 architecture, which operates directly on raw UTF-8 bytes and requires no Thai-specific tokenizer. AyutthayaAlpha-VerySmall uses a reduced configuration: d_model 256, d_ff 512, 4 layers, 4 heads, randomly initialized and trained for 20 epochs with AdamW, mixed precision, and checkpoints selected by validation character error rate. The other load-bearing component is the automatic example-selection pipeline: a random forest classifier with features including Thai/Latin name frequency, phonetic distance computed via CharsiuG2P IPA conversion and PanPhon weighted edit distance, RTGS similarity, and source indicators, applied to 66 million candidate pairs. The 0.95 probability cutoff is intended to guarantee roughly 99% precision, and the 1-to-20 confidence-based upsampling schedule reweights the surviving examples during training.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of 1,000 pairs from the 66-million-pair pool that were not used to train the random forest, have expert Thai annotators label each as a valid or invalid transliteration, and compute the actual precision at the 0.95 cutoff; if it is substantially below the claimed 0.99, the training data is noisier than assumed and the reported accuracies are inflated. A complementary check is to retrain the same model on only the 3,079 manually verified examples plus any additional expert-labeled pairs and compare held-out accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that AyutthayaAlpha-VerySmall, a custom 4-layer byte-level transformer with hidden size 256, feed-forward size 512, and 4 attention heads, achieves state-of-the-art Thai-Latin name transliteration: 83.94% first-token accuracy, 96.80% any-token accuracy, and 0.0047 character error rate on the held-out evaluation set of 3,305 Thai tokens with 7,243 expert romanizations. This unexpectedly beats AyutthayaAlpha-Small, the standard 6-layer ByT5-small model, on both accuracy metrics. The authors attribute the result to a data pipeline that combines linguistic rules with learned selection: a random forest trained on 3,079 human-labeled examples filters the noisy 66-million-pair pool at a 0.95 probability cutoff, keeping 1,265,215 pairs later upsampled to 2.7 million weighted examples. The model therefore learns not just a normative RTGS-style mapping but the range of attested personal romanization preferences.

Load-bearing premise

The random forest classifier trained on only 3,079 human-labeled examples is assumed to keep its measured precision of about 99% when applied to the 66 million automatically generated candidate pairs, so that the 1.27 million training pairs are mostly correct.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A from-scratch byte-level transformer can reach expert-level agreement on frequent Thai first-name romanization without any pretrained multilingual model, so pretraining is not a prerequisite for this task.
The smaller model outperforming the larger one suggests that transliteration quality is driven more by data curation than by parameter count, making the approach feasible on a single GPU with modest memory.
The random-forest filtering method turns a noisy 66-million-pair corpus into a usable 1.27-million-pair training set, offering a template for building training data in other low-resource transliteration tasks.
Because the model captures multiple accepted romanizations rather than a single normative output, it can support applications where identity documents legitimately vary in spelling, such as name matching and verification.
The reported accuracy serves as a new baseline for reverse transliteration (Latin to Thai) and extensions to full names and other scripts, which the paper proposes as future work.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Extending beyond the paper: the evaluation set covers only frequent first names with up to three expert-approved variants, so the 83.94% figure may not transfer to surnames or rare names; a frequency-stratified held-out test would reveal where the model degrades.
Extending beyond the paper: the 0.99 precision estimate at the 0.95 cutoff comes from cross-validation on the same 3,079 human labels, not from auditing the actual training pool; a direct expert audit of sampled training pairs would independently validate the filtering step.
Extending beyond the paper: since the models are byte-level and randomly initialized, the pipeline isolates the contribution of data scale and filtering quality; the same recipe could be tried on other script pairs where rule-based romanization is inconsistent.
Extending beyond the paper: the model's ability to produce multiple acceptable outputs suggests a natural evaluation extension where a human or a second model judges whether a generated romanization is acceptable to a native speaker, not just whether it exactly matches one reference variant.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Quick take: this is a useful applied paper with a real new artifact—a from-scratch byte-level transformer for Thai name romanization, trained on a large noisy web corpus filtered by a learned classifier, and evaluated on an expert-annotated set. The held-out evaluation is genuinely independent, and the authors are transparent about training data and limitations. The headline 'state-of-the-art' claim, however, is not supported by the experiments as written: no existing system is run on their test set. The stress-test note is correct—the abstract promises 'extensive evaluations against existing transliteration methods,' but Table 3 contains only the two AyutthayaAlpha models.

What I actually learned: the data curation pipeline is the most original piece. Training on 1.27M pairs filtered from 66M candidates, using a random forest trained on 3,079 human-labeled examples, is a plausible way to build a transliteration training set when no gold standard exists. The choice of features—phonetic distance and RTGS similarity—encodes a particular notion of correctness, so the model will inherit that bias; the authors acknowledge this. The 0.95 cutoff and 1-to-20 upsampling schedule are hand-picked, and the precision extrapolation from 3k labels to 66M candidates is a real risk. That is worth flagging but it is a standard engineering trade-off, not a fatal flaw.

The soft spots in proportion: missing baselines is the load-bearing one. 'State-of-the-art' appears in the abstract, intro, and conclusion, yet no RTGS, PyThaiNLP, Google Input Tools, Azure, or prior neural system is run on the same evaluation set. The 94.44% and 93.4% numbers cited from older work are on different data and are not comparable. Second, the metric definition is ambiguous: with up to three accepted references per name, 'first token accuracy' needs to say whether a match against any reference counts. Third, no error bars or significance tests on the main results, despite confidence intervals being given for the filter classifier. Fourth, the abstract mixes numbers from the two models (82.32%/95.24% from Small, 0.0047 CER from VerySmall) and calls the 95.24% figure 'first-three-token accuracy' when the table calls it 'any token accuracy.' Sloppy but fixable. Artifacts are not released; for a paper whose contribution is partly the dataset, that limits reproducibility.

Verdict: the central empirical claim is plausible but unverified. This deserves a serious referee: with same-benchmark baselines, clarified metrics, and error bars, it could be a solid applied contribution. I'd put it in the 'revise and resubmit' bucket, not the reject pile.

Recommendation: engage with it. The task is real, the evaluation is independent, and the data pipeline is worth borrowing even if the SOTA claim falls.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AyutthayaAlpha, a pair of from-scratch byte-level transformers (AyutthayaAlpha-Small and AyutthayaAlpha-VerySmall) for transliterating Thai proper names into Latin script. The training data are automatically generated Thai–Latin candidate pairs from the Nomograph knowledge graph, filtered by a random forest classifier trained on 3,079 manually labeled examples and further augmented by confidence-based upsampling. The main empirical claim is that the smaller variant reaches 83.94% first-token accuracy, 96.80% any-token accuracy, and 0.0047 CER on a held-out expert-annotated evaluation set of 3,305 Thai tokens, and that this constitutes state-of-the-art performance. The paper also reports a larger variant with 82.32% first-token accuracy and 95.24% any-token accuracy.

Significance. If the reported accuracy numbers are correct under a clearly defined matching rule, the paper would provide a useful practical system for Thai name romanization and a valuable corpus resource. The held-out expert evaluation set is a genuine strength, since it is independent of the model and reflects human judgment of acceptable romanizations. However, the paper's headline contribution—the state-of-the-art claim—is currently unsupported because no competing system is evaluated on the same test set, and the metric definitions are ambiguous when multiple reference romanizations exist. The training-data filtering step also depends on an extrapolation from a small labeled sample to a 66-million-pair pool, which needs direct validation. These issues are fixable but require additional experiments and clarification.

major comments (4)

[§4.5, Table 3; §5; Abstract] The claim of state-of-the-art performance is not supported by the experiments in the paper. Table 3 reports only the two AyutthayaAlpha models; no existing system (RTGS/PyThaiNLP, TLTK, Google Input Tools, Azure, or a prior neural method) is run on the 3,305-token expert evaluation set. The accuracies of earlier systems cited in §2 (94.44% and 93.4%) were measured on different, non-comparable test sets. The abstract states that the paper includes 'extensive evaluations against existing transliteration methods,' but no such comparison appears in the experimental sections. To substantiate the central claim, the authors should run the available baselines on the same held-out set and report exact-match and CER numbers for all systems.
[§4.4, Evaluation Metrics] The definitions of 'First Token Accuracy' and 'Any Token Accuracy' are ambiguous when the evaluation set contains up to three reference transliterations per Thai token. The text says first-token accuracy is the percentage where 'the model's top prediction matches the reference transliterations' but does not state whether a match with any of the multiple references counts, and whether partial token matches are allowed. Similarly, 'Any Token Accuracy' says 'top three predictions match any of the reference transliterations,' which conflates multiple predictions and multiple references. The CER and BLEU calculations also need to specify which reference string is used when several are available. Without these definitions, the reported 83.94% and 96.80% cannot be independently reproduced or compared with other work.
[§3.3, §3.3.1, Table 1] The training-data filtering step rests on an unvalidated extrapolation. The random forest classifier is trained and cross-validated on 3,079 human-labeled examples, and the 0.95 probability cutoff is justified by a 0.9914 precision estimate from that small labeled set. The classifier is then applied to the full pool of 66,161,456 automatically generated candidate pairs, and all 1,265,215 pairs above the cutoff are used as training labels. Precision on the original labeled set does not guarantee precision on the large noisy pool, whose distribution may differ substantially. The paper should provide a direct audit: a random sample of the accepted training pairs should be manually annotated, with the resulting precision reported. Without this, the quality of the training labels, and hence every downstream accuracy number, is uncertain.
[§4.5, Table 3] The main results are reported without confidence intervals or significance testing. The evaluation set contains 3,305 tokens, and the difference between the two models (83.94% vs. 82.32% first-token accuracy) is small; it may or may not be statistically meaningful. Reporting exact binomial confidence intervals and, if appropriate, a paired test would clarify whether the VerySmall model's advantage over the Small model is reliable. The same applies to the CER comparison (0.0047 vs. 0.0075).

minor comments (5)

[Abstract vs. Table 3] The abstract reports 82.32% first-token accuracy, 95.24% first-three-token accuracy, and a CER of 0.0047, but these numbers do not come from a single model: 82.32% and 95.24% are the Small model's results, while 0.0047 is the VerySmall model's CER. Table 3 gives the Small model's CER as 0.0075. The abstract should be corrected to describe one model or clearly attribute each metric.
[§3.1.1, §4.6] There are cross-reference errors in the manuscript: Section 3.1.1 says a sample of the evaluation dataset is presented in 'Table 1,' but the sample appears as Figure 1, and Section 4.6 refers to 'Table 3' for example predictions when the examples are actually shown in Figure 3.
[§4.4] The term 'First Token Accuracy' is potentially misleading for names that consist of multiple Latin-script tokens; the abstract uses 'first-three-token accuracy' while the body uses 'Any Token Accuracy.' The paper should clarify whether these refer to the same evaluation procedure and define what constitutes a 'token' in the output.
[§4.4, Table 3] The BLEU score is computed at the character level ('1-gram is one character'), which is nonstandard and yields very high values (97.71, 97.30). The authors should state explicitly that this is character-level BLEU and caution that it is not comparable to word-level BLEU values in the literature.
[References] Reference [6], 'Thai language toolkit project version 1.2.1,' is incomplete: no authors, URL, or institutional homepage are provided, making it difficult to verify the toolkit and its romanization implementation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the held-out expert evaluation and train/test separation make the reported accuracy non-tautological, and the disclosed self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim, reported in Section 4.5 / Table 3, is measured against a manually annotated evaluation dataset (Section 3.1.1) from which all Thai names are removed before training: 'All pairs with Thai names occurring in the manually created test datasets were removed' (Section 3.3.1). The evaluation is therefore not a restatement of the training data or of the feature functions used to filter it. The example-selection random forest (Section 3.3) does use features such as phonetic-distance and RTGS-similarity, which encode a particular notion of 'correct' romanization, but this is a data-cleaning step and not the evaluation target; the filter's precision is itself validated on a separate 3,079-example human-labeled set (Table 1), and the final accuracy could in principle be low even if the filter is biased. Such a bias would be a validity risk, not a circular reduction. The only self-citation, to the Nomograph knowledge graph [4] as a training-data source, is disclosed and does not carry any load-bearing uniqueness or derivation step. The abstract's 'state-of-the-art' claim is not supported by any direct baseline comparison in the experiments, but an absent baseline is an evidence/rigor problem, not a circularity: the model's outputs are not defined in terms of the claimed comparison. I therefore find no significant circularity in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities, forces, or conserved quantities. The two trained models are engineering artifacts, not postulated mechanisms.

free parameters (3)

Example selection probability threshold = 0.95
Hand-chosen cutoff applied to random forest confidence; determines which pairs enter the 1.27M training set (Section 3.3.1).
Upsampling weight range = 1 to 20, linear in confidence 0.95 to 1.0
Arbitrary linear schedule used to weight training examples by filter confidence, expanding 1.27M pairs to 2.7M examples (Section 3.3.2).
Random forest hyperparameters = n_estimators=500, min_samples_split=2, min_samples_leaf=4, max_depth=10
Selected by grid search on 3,079 labeled examples; these choices affect which candidates survive filtering (Section 3.3).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Random forest precision on the 3,079-example validation set generalizes to the 66M candidate pairs, so the 0.95 cutoff yields ~99% precision and negligible wrong training examples.
Section 3.3.1 applies the cutoff to the full pooled corpus without recalibration or manual audit of the selected pairs.
domain assumption The expert-annotated evaluation set of 3,305 frequent first names is representative of Thai name romanization, including surnames and rare names.
The paper draws conclusions about general Thai name transliteration from a test set restricted to frequent first names (Section 3.1.1).
domain assumption Phonetic distance computed with British English IPA and PanPhon weighted edit distance is an adequate measure of Thai-Latin phonetic similarity.
This feature is the second most important in the filter (Table 2); the paper itself notes it is an approximation limited by transcription and perception (Section 3.2).
domain assumption Automatically generated romanizations from Google, Azure, Mondonomo, and RTGS packages cover enough of the true variation to serve as training candidates.
Section 3.2; these are machine-generated labels whose correctness is only indirectly assessed by the filter.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AyutthayaAlpha: A Thai-Latin Script Transliteration Transformer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NIPLOT3R

@misc{pith2026241203877,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AyutthayaAlpha: A Thai-Latin Script Transliteration Transformer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NIPLOT3R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03877}
}

read the original abstract

This study introduces AyutthayaAlpha, an advanced transformer-based machine learning model designed for the transliteration of Thai proper names into Latin script. Our system achieves state-of-the-art performance with 82.32% first-token accuracy and 95.24% first-three-token accuracy, while maintaining a low character error rate of 0.0047. The complexity of Thai phonology, including tonal features and vowel length distinctions, presents significant challenges for accurate transliteration, which we address through a novel two-model approach: AyutthayaAlpha-Small, based on the ByT5 architecture, and AyutthayaAlpha-VerySmall, a computationally efficient variant that unexpectedly outperforms its larger counterpart. Our research combines linguistic rules with deep learning, training on a carefully curated dataset of 1.2 million Thai-Latin name pairs, augmented through strategic upsampling to 2.7 million examples. Extensive evaluations against existing transliteration methods and human expert benchmarks demonstrate that AyutthayaAlpha not only achieves superior accuracy but also effectively captures personal and cultural preferences in name romanization. The system's practical applications extend to cross-lingual information retrieval, international data standardization, and identity verification systems, with particular relevance for government databases, academic institutions, and global business operations. This work represents a significant advance in bridging linguistic gaps between Thai and Latin scripts, while respecting the cultural and personal dimensions of name transliteration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03877 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Sample of the Training Dataset 3.3 Example Selection Model Using the manually created dataset with 3,079 positive and negative examples, a classification model for example selection was developed. A Random Forest model with parameters n estimators=500, min samples split=2, min samples leaf=4, and max depth=10 was 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Example Predictions from AyutthayaAlpha Models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

A unified model of thai romanization and word segmenta- tion

Wirote Aroonmanakun. A unified model of thai romanization and word segmenta- tion. In Proceedings of the 18th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, pages 205–214, 2004

work page 2004
[2]

A corpus-based approach for thai romanization

Leung King Chiu, Natsuda Kaothanthong, Thanaruk Theeramunkong, and Cholwich Nattee. A corpus-based approach for thai romanization. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Natural Language Processing (SNLP2007) , 2007. 14

work page 2007
[3]

Generating transcriptions for romanized thai persons’ names

Atiwong Suchato, Chuleekorn Kittikool, and Proadpran Punyabukkana. Generating transcriptions for romanized thai persons’ names. In 2012 9th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology, pages 1–4. IEEE, 2012

work page 2012
[4]

Navigating linguistic similarities among countries using fuzzy sets of proper names

Davor Lauc. Navigating linguistic similarities among countries using fuzzy sets of proper names. Names, 72(1):33–46, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

PyThaiNLP: Thai Natural Language Processing in Python

Wannaphong Phatthiyaphaibun, Korakot Chaovavanich, Charin Polpanumas, Arthit Suriyawongkul, Lalita Lowphansirikul, Pattarawat Chormai, Peerat Limkonchotiwat, Thanathip Suntorntip, and Can Udomcharoenchaikit. Pythainlp: Thai natural language processing in python. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04649 , 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[6]

Thai language toolkit project version 1.2.1, 2018

work page 2018
[7]

Google input tools

Google LLC. Google input tools. https://www.google.com/inputtools/, 2024. On- line service for inputting text in various languages and scripts. Features include translit- eration, handwriting recognition, and virtual keyboards for over 100 languages. Ac- cessed: 2024-03-19

work page 2024
[8]

Azure ai translator api - transliterate method

Microsoft Corporation. Azure ai translator api - transliterate method. https: //learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-services/translator/reference/ v3-0-transliterate, 2024. Part of Azure AI Services, the Translator API’s transliterate method converts text in one language from one script to another script. Documentation version 3.0. Accessed: 2024-03-19

work page 2024

Show all 14 references

[9]

Byt5 model for massively multilingual grapheme-to-phoneme conversion

Jian Zhu, Cong Zhang, and David Jurgens. Byt5 model for massively multilingual grapheme-to-phoneme conversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.03067 , 2022

2022 arXiv
[10]

Mortensen, Patrick Littell, Akash Bharadwaj, Kartik Goyal, Chris Dyer, and Lori S

David R. Mortensen, Patrick Littell, Akash Bharadwaj, Kartik Goyal, Chris Dyer, and Lori S. Levin. Panphon: A resource for mapping IPA segments to articulatory fea- ture vectors. In Proceedings of COLING 2016, the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Tec...

2016
[11]

Byt5: Towards a token-free future with pre-trained byte-to-byte models

Linting Xue, Aditya Barua, Noah Constant, Rami Al-Rfou, Sharan Narang, Mihir Kale, Adam Roberts, and Colin Raffel. Byt5: Towards a token-free future with pre-trained byte-to-byte models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 10:291–306, 2022

2022
[12]

Trans- formers: State-of-the-art natural language processing

Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, R´ emi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. Trans- formers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 con- ference on empirical methods...

2020
[13]

Decoupled weight decay regularization

I Loshchilov. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101 , 2017. 15

2017 arXiv
[14]

Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation

Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 311–318, 2002. 16

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A unified model of thai romanization and word segmenta- tion

Wirote Aroonmanakun. A unified model of thai romanization and word segmenta- tion. In Proceedings of the 18th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, pages 205–214, 2004

work page 2004

[2] [2]

A corpus-based approach for thai romanization

Leung King Chiu, Natsuda Kaothanthong, Thanaruk Theeramunkong, and Cholwich Nattee. A corpus-based approach for thai romanization. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Natural Language Processing (SNLP2007) , 2007. 14

work page 2007

[3] [3]

Generating transcriptions for romanized thai persons’ names

Atiwong Suchato, Chuleekorn Kittikool, and Proadpran Punyabukkana. Generating transcriptions for romanized thai persons’ names. In 2012 9th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology, pages 1–4. IEEE, 2012

work page 2012

[4] [4]

Navigating linguistic similarities among countries using fuzzy sets of proper names

Davor Lauc. Navigating linguistic similarities among countries using fuzzy sets of proper names. Names, 72(1):33–46, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [5]

PyThaiNLP: Thai Natural Language Processing in Python

Wannaphong Phatthiyaphaibun, Korakot Chaovavanich, Charin Polpanumas, Arthit Suriyawongkul, Lalita Lowphansirikul, Pattarawat Chormai, Peerat Limkonchotiwat, Thanathip Suntorntip, and Can Udomcharoenchaikit. Pythainlp: Thai natural language processing in python. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04649 , 2023

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

Thai language toolkit project version 1.2.1, 2018

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Google input tools

Google LLC. Google input tools. https://www.google.com/inputtools/, 2024. On- line service for inputting text in various languages and scripts. Features include translit- eration, handwriting recognition, and virtual keyboards for over 100 languages. Ac- cessed: 2024-03-19

work page 2024

[8] [8]

Azure ai translator api - transliterate method

Microsoft Corporation. Azure ai translator api - transliterate method. https: //learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-services/translator/reference/ v3-0-transliterate, 2024. Part of Azure AI Services, the Translator API’s transliterate method converts text in one language from one script to another script. Documentation version 3.0. Accessed: 2024-03-19

work page 2024