Back to all available

Natural language processing for Arabic poetry: A systematic review

artificial-intelligence
computational-linguistics
data-mining-and-machine-learning
natural-language-and-speech
text-mining

Abstract

Poetry is a unique form of expression valued for its role in preserving cultural heritage. Fascination with poetry has sparked research interest in the application of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) techniques to the analysis and generation of poetry texts. This paper presents the first systematic review of NLP- and ML-based approaches to Arabic poetry. In accordance with PRISMA, we conducted an exhaustive search across six major academic databases (ACL Anthology, IEEE Xplore, ACM, SpringerLink, Science Direct, and Google Scholar) for relevant studies published between January 2010 and May 2025. In the domain of poetry classification, we analyzed 37 studies covering nine major classification categories, including meter, authorship, poem type, genre, era, emotion, and diacritization. Ten studies on poetry generation were reviewed and synthesized. For each category, we examined the primary methodologies employed, evaluation metrics and results reported, and key challenges and opportunities. Additionally, we compiled a comprehensive overview of the available datasets, tools, and other resources that support future work in computational poetry.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].