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 search 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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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. Pierre Pelletier & Kevin Wirtz, 2023. "Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation," Papers 2312.10476, arXiv.org.
    6. 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.
    7. Nicolas Carayol, 2016. "The Right Job and the Job Right: Novelty, Impact and Journal Stratification in Science," Post-Print hal-02274661, HAL.
    8. 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.
    9. Christian Catalini & Christian Fons-Rosen & Patrick Gaulé, 2020. "How Do Travel Costs Shape Collaboration?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3340-3360, August.
    10. Sotaro Shibayama & Deyun Yin & Kuniko Matsumoto, 2021. "Measuring novelty in science with word embedding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-16, July.
    11. Chai, Sen & Menon, Anoop, 2019. "Breakthrough recognition: Bias against novelty and competition for attention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 733-747.
    12. 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).
    13. Miguel Navascués & Costantino Budroni, 2019. "Theoretical research without projects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-35, March.
    14. Seokbeom Kwon & Kazuyuki Motohashi & Kenta Ikeuchi, 2022. "Chasing two hares at once? Effect of joint institutional change for promoting commercial use of university knowledge and scientific research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1242-1272, August.
    15. Wang, Zhongyi & Zhang, Haoxuan & Chen, Jiangping & Chen, Haihua, 2024. "An effective framework for measuring the novelty of scientific articles through integrated topic modeling and cloud model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).
    16. Seolmin Yang & So Young Kim, 2023. "Knowledge-integrated research is more disruptive when supported by homogeneous funding sources: a case of US federally funded research in biomedical and life sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3257-3282, June.
    17. Lu Liu & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi & Dashun Wang, 2023. "Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(7), pages 1046-1058, July.
    18. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2022. "Interdisciplinary knowledge integration as a unique knowledge source for technology development and the role of funding allocation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    19. Fontana, Magda & Iori, Martina & Montobbio, Fabio & Sinatra, Roberta, 2020. "New and atypical combinations: An assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    20. Wang, Jian & Verberne, Suzan, 2024. "Comparing patent in-text and front-page references to science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).

    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.