The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Improved Neural Protoform Reconstruction via Reflex Prediction
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Sorted by citations
Phonetic Reconstruction of the Consonant System of Middle Chinese via Mixed Integer Optimization
Luo, X., & Sun, W. (2025) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00742 · Cited by 1
Using feature vectors for automated phonological reconstruction and reflex prediction
Wientzek, T. (2025) · Open Research Europe · doi:10.12688/openreseurope.20647.1
Kpoglu, P. D. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.10614
Metadata
- Authors
- Lu, L., Wang, J., & Mortensen, D. R.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- ORCID
- Mortensen, David R.
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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