Dialectal Arabic (DA) remains under-resourced compared to Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), particularly for machine reading comprehension (MRC) and question answering (QA). Existing Arabic QA benchmarks primarily focus on formal written MSA or multiple-choice QA, with limited coverage of naturally spoken dialects. Here, we aim to bridge this gap. We introduce EDRAC, the first large-scale benchmark for dialectal Arabic machine reading comprehension (MRC) and generative QA, covering five major dialects: Egyptian, Moroccan, Emirati, Syrian, and Saudi Arabic. EDRAC contains 499 passages derived from naturally occurring spoken interactions and 4,977 corresponding QA pairs generated through a human–LLM collaborative pipeline combining iterative generation, LLM-as-a-judge evaluation, and human verification. We benchmark Arabic-centric and multilingual LLMs on EDRAC using lexical and semantic metrics. Our results reveal substantial gaps between semantic answer quality and dialectal fidelity, highlighting the limitations of existing evaluation metrics for dialectal Arabic generation. EDRAC provides a realistic and challenging MRC benchmark for future research on dialectal Arabic NLP.

We present the findings of the sixth Nuanced Arabic Dialect Identification (NADI 2025) Shared Task, which focused on Arabic speech dialect processing across three subtasks: spoken dialect identification (Subtask 1), speech recognition (Subtask 2), and diacritic restoration for spoken dialects (Subtask 3). A total of 44 teams registered, and during the testing phase, 100 valid submissions were received from eight unique teams. The distribution was as follows: 34 submissions for Subtask 1 five teams, 47 submissions for Subtask 2 six teams, and 19 submissions for Subtask 3 two teams. The best-performing systems achieved 79.8% accuracy on Subtask 1, 35.68/12.20 WER/CER (overall average) on Subtask 2, and 55/13 WER/CER on Subtask 3. These results highlight the ongoing challenges of Arabic dialect speech processing, particularly in dialect identification, recognition, and diacritic restoration. We also summarize the methods adopted by participating teams and briefly outline directions for future editions of NADI.