IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v12y2025i1d10.1057_s41599-025-04714-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mean-reverting self-excitation drives evolution: phylogenetic analysis of a literary genre, waka, with a neural language model

Author

Listed:
  • Takuma Tanaka

    (Shiga University)

Abstract

To elucidate the evolutionary dynamics of culture, we must address fundamental questions such as whether we can interpolate and extrapolate cultural evolution, whether the time series of cultural evolution is distinguishable from its reverse, what factors determine the direction of change, and how the cultural influence of a creative work from the viewpoint of an instant is correlated with that from the viewpoint of a later instant. To answer these questions, the evolution of classical Japanese poetry, waka, specifically tanka, was investigated. Phylogenetic networks were constructed on the basis of the vector representation obtained using a neural language model. The parent–child relationship in the phylogenetic networks exhibited significant agreement with a previously established honkadori (allusive variation) phrase-borrowing relationship. The real phylogenetic networks were distinguishable from the time-reversed and shuffled ones. Two anthologies could be interpolated but not extrapolated. The number of children of a poem in the phylogenetic networks, the proxy variable of its cultural influence, evaluated at an instant, was positively correlated with that evaluated later. A poem selected for an authoritative anthology tended to have 10–50% more children than a similar but nonselected poem, implying the existence of the Matthew effect. A model with mean-reverting self-excitation replicated these results.

Suggested Citation

  • Takuma Tanaka, 2025. "Mean-reverting self-excitation drives evolution: phylogenetic analysis of a literary genre, waka, with a neural language model," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-04714-1
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-04714-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-025-04714-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-025-04714-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:plo:pone00:0122565 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Cristian Candia & C. Jara-Figueroa & Carlos Rodriguez-Sickert & Albert-László Barabási & César A. Hidalgo, 2019. "The universal decay of collective memory and attention," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(1), pages 82-91, January.
    3. Wang, Jian & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Stephan, Paula, 2017. "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1416-1436.
    4. Adrian C. Barbrook & Christopher J. Howe & Norman Blake & Peter Robinson, 1998. "The phylogeny of The Canterbury Tales," Nature, Nature, vol. 394(6696), pages 839-839, August.
    5. Thomas E. Currie & Simon J. Greenhill & Russell D. Gray & Toshikazu Hasegawa & Ruth Mace, 2010. "Rise and fall of political complexity in island South-East Asia and the Pacific," Nature, Nature, vol. 467(7317), pages 801-804, October.
    6. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    7. Russell D. Gray & Quentin D. Atkinson, 2003. "Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin," Nature, Nature, vol. 426(6965), pages 435-439, November.
    8. Ilia Shumailov & Zakhar Shumaylov & Yiren Zhao & Nicolas Papernot & Ross Anderson & Yarin Gal, 2024. "AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data," Nature, Nature, vol. 631(8022), pages 755-759, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    2. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    3. Sam Arts & Nicola Melluso & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2023. "Beyond Citations: Measuring Novel Scientific Ideas and their Impact in Publication Text," Papers 2309.16437, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2024.
    4. Chiara Franzoni & Paula Stephan & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2022. "Funding Risky Research," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 103-133.
    5. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Wang, Jian, 2019. "Scientific novelty and technological impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1362-1372.
    6. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2023. "Bias against scientific novelty: A prepublication perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 99-114, January.
    7. Li, Meiling & Wang, Yang & Du, Haifeng & Bai, Aruhan, 2024. "Motivating innovation: The impact of prestigious talent funding on junior scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(9).
    8. Giulia Rossello & Robin Cowan & Jacques Mairesse, 2024. "Ph.D. publication productivity: the role of gender and race in supervision in South Africa," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 215-227, June.
    9. Nicolas Carayol, 2016. "The Right Job and the Job Right: Novelty, Impact and Journal Stratification in Science," Post-Print hal-02274661, HAL.
    10. W. Benedikt Schmal, 2024. "Academic Knowledge: Does it Reflect the Combinatorial Growth of Technology?," Papers 2409.20282, arXiv.org.
    11. Charles Ayoubi & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2021. "Does It Pay to Do Novel Science? The Selectivity Patterns in Science Funding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(5), pages 635-648.
    12. Feng Shi & James Evans, 2023. "Surprising combinations of research contents and contexts are related to impact and emerge with scientific outsiders from distant disciplines," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    13. Pierre Pelletier & Kevin Wirtz, 2023. "Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation," Papers 2312.10476, arXiv.org.
    14. Yang Ding & Fernando Moreira, 2025. "Funding and productivity: Does winning grants affect the scientific productivity of recipients? Evidence from the social sciences and economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1831-1870, March.
    15. Jay Bhattacharya & Mikko Packalen, 2020. "Stagnation and Scientific Incentives," NBER Working Papers 26752, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Pezzoni, Michele & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Visentin, Fabiana, 2022. "How fast is this novel technology going to be a hit? Antecedents predicting follow-on inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    17. Deyun Yin & Zhao Wu & Kazuki Yokota & Kuniko Matsumoto & Sotaro Shibayama, 2023. "Identify novel elements of knowledge with word embedding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(6), pages 1-16, June.
    18. Bornmann, Lutz & Tekles, Alexander & Zhang, Helena H. & Ye, Fred Y., 2019. "Do we measure novelty when we analyze unusual combinations of cited references? A validation study of bibliometric novelty indicators based on F1000Prime data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    19. Christian Catalini & Christian Fons-Rosen & Patrick Gaulé, 2020. "How Do Travel Costs Shape Collaboration?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3340-3360, August.
    20. Nico Neureiter & Peter Ranacher & Nour Efrat-Kowalsky & Gereon A. Kaiping & Robert Weibel & Paul Widmer & Remco R. Bouckaert, 2022. "Detecting contact in language trees: a Bayesian phylogenetic model with horizontal transfer," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-04714-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.