Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Products

aiqbench analysis

This study evaluates a CPU-only NLP pipeline for automating government citizen appeals, demonstrating that lightweight models like Word2Vec+LSTM offer practical advantages in retraining frequency and inference speed over heavier BERT architectures. The analysis highlights that while model accuracy improves significantly over human operators, the majority of remaining errors stem from ambiguous statutory definitions rather than algorithmic limitations, underscoring the critical role of data taxonomy in real-world deployment.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

AI Appeals Processor: A Deep Learning Approach to Automated Classification of Citizen Appeals in Government Services

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2604.03672v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Government agencies must register, classify and route every citizen appeal within statutory time limits, and much of this work is still done by hand. We describe AI Appeals Processor, a classification and routing component deployed in a CPU-only government environment, and report what its evaluation and deployment taught us. On 10,000 real Russian-language appeals from a cross-domain dataset, we compare Bag-of-Words and TF-IDF with SVM, fastText, Word2Vec+LSTM and multilingual BERT on a three-way appeal-type task. On a held-out test set of 1,500 appeals, BERT reaches 82% accuracy and Word2Vec+LSTM 78%, against 67% for individual operators measured on an expert-adjudicated gold standard. We deployed the LSTM: in a workflow where an operator verifies every prediction, its lower training cost made frequent retraining on operator-verified labels practical, while the four-point accuracy gap did not change the operator's task. End-to-end handling time fell by 53-56% across four appeal-length bands (unweighted mean 22.5 to 10.25 minutes); model inference takes under two seconds of this. Most residual errors trace to the label taxonomy rather than the model: the statutory definitions of complaints and applications overlap, and many appeals carry two intents. A post-deployment audit of production classifications, made after several retraining cycles by operators who saw the assigned category, judged more than 95% correct; we explain why this figure is not comparable with the test-set result.

Abstract:Government agencies must register, classify and route every citizen appeal within statutory time limits, and much of this work is still done by hand. We describe AI Appeals Processor, a classification and routing component deployed in a CPU-only government environment, and report what its evaluation and deployment taught us. On 10,000 real Russian-language appeals from a cross-domain dataset, we compare Bag-of-Words and TF-IDF with SVM, fastText, Word2Vec+LSTM and multilingual BERT on a three-way appeal-type task. On a held-out test set of 1,500 appeals, BERT reaches 82% accuracy and Word2Vec+LSTM 78%, against 67% for individual operators measured on an expert-adjudicated gold standard. We deployed the LSTM: in a workflow where an operator verifies every prediction, its lower training cost made frequent retraining on operator-verified labels practical, while the four-point accuracy gap did not change the operator's task. End-to-end handling time fell by 53-56% across four appeal-length bands (unweighted mean 22.5 to 10.25 minutes); model inference takes under two seconds of this. Most residual errors trace to the label taxonomy rather than the model: the statutory definitions of complaints and applications overlap, and many appeals carry two intents. A post-deployment audit of production classifications, made after several retraining cycles by operators who saw the assigned category, judged more than 95% correct; we explain why this figure is not comparable with the test-set result.

11 pages, 6 tables. v2 corrects the reference list, adds confidence intervals, a description of the production audit, and sections on lessons from deployment, limitations and ethical considerations; all test-set results are unchanged

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2604.03672 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2604.03672v2 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19393274 DOI(s) linking to related resources

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 275 words

Related coverage