@inproceedings{bollineni-etal-2025-mapping,
    title = "Mapping Hymns and Organizing Concepts in the Rigveda: Quantitatively Connecting the {V}edic Suktas",
    author = "Bollineni, Venkatesh  and
      Crk, Igor  and
      Gultepe, Eren",
    editor = {H{\"a}m{\"a}l{\"a}inen, Mika  and
      {\"O}hman, Emily  and
      Bizzoni, Yuri  and
      Miyagawa, So  and
      Alnajjar, Khalid},
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Natural Language Processing for Digital Humanities",
    month = may,
    year = "2025",
    address = "Albuquerque, USA",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/landing_page/2025.nlp4dh-1.44/",
    pages = "514--523",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-234-3",
    abstract = "Accessing and gaining insight into the Rigveda poses a non-trivial challenge due to its extremely ancient Sanskrit language, poetic structure, and large volume of text. By using NLP techniques, this study identified topics and semantic connections of hymns within the Rigveda that were corroborated by seven well-known groupings of hymns. The 1,028 suktas (hymns) from the modern English translation of the Rigveda by Jamison and Brereton were preprocessed and sukta-level embeddings were obtained using, i) a novel adaptation of LSA, presented herein, ii) SBERT, and iii) Doc2Vec embeddings. Following an UMAP dimension reduction of the vectors, the network of suktas was formed using k-nearest neighbours. Then, community detection of topics in the sukta networks was performed with the Louvain, Leiden, and label propagation methods, whose statistical significance of the formed topics were determined using an appropriate null distribution. Only the novel adaptation of LSA using the Leiden method, had detected sukta topic networks that were significant (\textit{z} = 2.726, \textit{p} {\ensuremath{<}} .01) with a modularity score of 0.944. Of the seven famous sukta groupings analyzed (e.g., creation, funeral, water, etc.) the LSA derived network was successful in all seven cases, while Doc2Vec was not significant and failed to detect the relevant suktas. SBERT detected four of the famous suktas as separate groups, but mistakenly combined three of them into a single mixed group. Also, the SBERT network was not statistically significant."
}