mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Automating Sound Change Prediction for Phylogenetic Inference: A Tukanoan Case Study

arXiv 2402.01582 ↗First posted 2 Feb 2024cs.CLcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We describe a set of new methods to partially automate linguistic phylogenetic inference given (1) cognate sets with their respective protoforms and sound laws, (2) a mapping from phones to their articulatory features and (3) a typological database of sound changes. We train a neural network on these sound change data to weight articulatory distances between phones and predict intermediate sound change steps between historical protoforms and their modern descendants, replacing a linguistic expert in part of a parsimony-based phylogenetic inference algorithm. In our best experiments on Tukanoan languages, this method produces trees with a Generalized Quartet Distance of 0.12 from a tree that used expert annotations, a significant improvement over other semi-automated baselines. We discuss potential benefits and drawbacks to our neural approach and parsimony-based tree prediction. We also experiment with a minimal generalization learner for automatic sound law induction, finding it comparably effective to sound laws from expert annotation. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/cmu-llab/aiscp.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Feb 2024.

Builds on

3 of 41 references.

References · 3

  1. 2020Where New Words Are Born: Distributional Semantic Analysis of Neologisms and Their Semantic Neighborhoodscited by 17
  2. 2018Are Automatic Methods for Cognate Detection Good Enough for Phylogenetic Reconstruction in Historical Linguistics?cited by 15
  3. 2021Quantifying Cognitive Factors in Lexical Declinecited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 3; 2025: 1.

4 papers.