Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 183 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 46 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 30 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 28 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 82 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 213 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 457 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 36 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Are Automatic Methods for Cognate Detection Good Enough for Phylogenetic Reconstruction in Historical Linguistics? (1804.05416v1)

Published 15 Apr 2018 in cs.CL

Abstract: We evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art algorithms for automatic cognate detection by comparing how useful automatically inferred cognates are for the task of phylogenetic inference compared to classical manually annotated cognate sets. Our findings suggest that phylogenies inferred from automated cognate sets come close to phylogenies inferred from expert-annotated ones, although on average, the latter are still superior. We conclude that future work on phylogenetic reconstruction can profit much from automatic cognate detection. Especially where scholars are merely interested in exploring the bigger picture of a language family's phylogeny, algorithms for automatic cognate detection are a useful complement for current research on language phylogenies.

Citations (47)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.