Cited by 3Neural Networks and ApplicationsNeural dynamics and brain functionAdvanced Memory and Neural Computing

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Improved Neural Protoform Reconstruction via Reflex Prediction

Open access
Lu, Liang, Wang, Jingzhi, Mortensen, David R.·2024·Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference

Abstract

Protolanguage reconstruction is central to historical linguistics.The comparative method, one of the most influential theoretical and methodological frameworks in the history of the language sciences, allows linguists to infer protoforms (reconstructed ancestral words) from their reflexes (related modern words) based on the assumption of regular sound change.Not surprisingly, numerous computational linguists have attempted to operationalize comparative reconstruction through various computational models, the most successful of which have been supervised encoder-decoder models, which treat the problem of predicting protoforms given sets of reflexes as a sequence-to-sequence problem.We argue that this framework ignores one of the most important aspects of the comparative method: not only should protoforms be inferable from cognate sets (sets of related reflexes) but the reflexes should also be inferable from the protoforms.Leveraging another line of research-reflex prediction-we propose a system in which candidate protoforms from a reconstruction model are reranked by a reflex prediction model 1 .We show that this more complete implementation of the comparative method allows us to surpass state-of-the-art protoform reconstruction methods on three of four Chinese and Romance datasets.

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 · 10.63317/49gwwxrskaoh

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.

Metadata

Authors
Lu, L., Wang, J., & Mortensen, D. R.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference
Published
2024-05
Pages
8683-8707
ISSN
2522-2686
OpenAlex
W7131787635
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2
FWCI
0.59
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Advanced Memory and Neural Computing
Keywords
neural architecture search

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