Cited by 0Linguistics and language evolutionDigital Humanities and ScholarshipNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Using Correspondence Patterns to Identify Irregular Words in Cognate Sets Through Leave-One-Out Validation

Open access
Blum, Frederic, List, Johann-Mattis·2026·The Proceedings for the 6th International Workshop on Computational Approaches to Language Change (LChange’26)

Abstract

Regular sound correspondences constitute the principal evidence in historical language comparison.Despite the heuristic focus on regularity, it is often more an intuitive judgement than a quantified evaluation, and irregularity is more common than expected from the Neogrammarian model.Given the recent progress of computational methods in historical linguistics and the increased availability of standardized lexical data, we are now able to improve our workflows and provide such a quantitative evaluation.Here, we present the balanced average recurrence of correspondence patterns as a new measure of regularity.We also present a new computational method that uses this measure to identify cognate sets that lack regularity with respect to their correspondence patterns.We validate the method through two experiments, using simulated and real data.In the experiments, we employ leave-one-out validation to measure the regularity of cognate sets in which one word form has been replaced by an irregular one, checking how well our method identifies the forms causing the irregularity.Our method achieves an overall accuracy of 85% with the datasets based on real data.We also show the benefits of working with subsamples of large datasets and how increasing irregularity in the data influences our results.Reflecting on the broader potential of our new regularity measure and the irregular cognate identification method based on it, we conclude that they could play an important role in improving the quality of existing and future datasets in computer-assisted language comparison.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2026.lchange-1.6

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Still being checked.

Metadata

Authors
Blum, F., & List, J.-M.
Affiliations
University of Passau (DE)
Venue
The Proceedings for the 6th International Workshop on Computational Approaches to Language Change (LChange’26)
Published
2026
Pages
75-86
OpenAlex
W7140134857
Cited by
0
References
0
FWCI
0.00
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Funders
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (CALC3)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and language evolution
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Digital Humanities and Scholarship
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
sound correspondences, cognate sets, irregular words, leave-one-out cross-validation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review