Unsupervised rhyme recognition across multiple languages: training data size, human agreement, and linguistic differences

Clicks: 6
ID: 322505
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #9 of 18 articles by views in digital scholarship in the humanities

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Rhyme is deceptively intuitive: what is or is not a rhyme is constructed historically, scholars struggle with rhyme classification, and people disagree on whether two words are rhymed or not. This complicates automated rhymed recognition and evaluation, especially in cross-language research contexts. This article investigates how much training data are needed for reliable unsupervised rhyme recognition using RhymeTagger, a language-independent tool that identifies rhymes based on repeating patterns in poetry corpora. We evaluate its performance across seven languages (Czech, German, English, French, Italian, Russian, and Slovene), examining how training size and language differences affect accuracy. To set a realistic performance benchmark, we assess inter-annotator agreement on a manually annotated subset of poems and analyze factors contributing to disagreement in expert annotations: phonetic similarity between rhyming words and their distance from each other in a poem. We also compare RhymeTagger to three large language models (LLMs) using a one-shot learning strategy. Our findings show that, once provided with sufficient training data, RhymeTagger consistently outperforms human agreement, while LLMs lacking phonetic representation significantly struggle with the task.
Reference Key
openalex_W7171216232 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Petr Plecháč, Artjoms Šeļa, Ben Nagy, Silvie Cinková, Mirella De Sisto, Lara Nugues, Neža Kočnik, Antonina Martynenko, Luca Giovannini, Robert Kolář
Journal digital scholarship in the humanities
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/llc/fqag098
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.