An HMM on a Lattice Beats Neural Nets and Claude at Scanning Ottoman Poetry

A hidden Markov model trained without scansion labels correctly meters 77.6% of Ottoman verse lines — tripling the rule-based baseline and outperforming both a neural tagger and Claude Opus 5.5.

Imagine you're trying to figure out the rhythm of a song, but someone handed you the lyrics in a different alphabet that dropped half the timing marks. You know the song has to fit one of about 30 possible beat patterns, and each word could be chopped into syllables several different ways. Your job is to simultaneously guess the beat pattern AND figure out which syllable-chopping makes the words land on the right beats. That's aruz scansion of Ottoman poetry from modern Turkish spelling — and this paper builds a surprisingly old-school machine to do it well. The committed claim: a lattice-based hidden Markov model, trained by expectation-maximization from printed meter labels alone (no scansion annotations), achieves 77.6% full-line-correct scansion on Ottoman Divan poetry written in modern Turkish orthography. This triples the 26.8% of the existing rule-based scanner, beats a neural sequence tagger at 55.0% given identical supervision, and outperforms Claude Opus 5.5 few-shot prompting at 63.6%. The key structural insight is that the ambiguity in this problem — multiple valid syllabifications per word, multiple candidate meters per poem — is better handled by exhaustive lattice enumeration than by neural pattern matching or LLM reasoning. The architecture is a classical HMM where hidden states are positions within a meter pattern, observations are syllable weight sequences, and the decode runs over a lattice of every candidate syllabification path. Training uses EM: the only supervision is the poem's declared meter (which tells you the expected weight pattern), not the actual alignment of weights to syllables. This is elegant because it converts a sequence-labeling problem into a structured search problem. The lattice handles the combinatorial explosion of possible syllabifications by keeping all candidates alive until Viterbi decoding picks the best path. No GPU required — this is a CPU model with a handcrafted feature set rooted in Ottoman phonology. The corpus is 52,000 lines from multiple poets, split by poet to prevent leakage, with 500 hand-annotated test lines for scansion evaluation. Critically, the authors also build a robustness benchmark by injecting character-level noise at rates measured from real web and OCR copies of Ottoman texts. The baselines are honest: the rule-based system is the only publicly available alternative, the neural tagger (BiLSTM-CRF, from context) gets the same weak supervision, and Claude Opus 5.5 gets few-shot examples — a strong modern baseline. The model wins decisively on all comparisons. Integrity is solid but bounded. The 500-line test set is hand-annotated but by whom and with what inter-annotator agreement is not stated in the abstract. The poet-split prevents the most obvious leakage. The robustness benchmark is a genuinely useful contribution — OCR noise is the real deployment enemy for any digitized-poetry tool. Code is open-sourced and the tool is live on the web, which is the gold standard for reproducibility in computational humanities. The milestone that matters: 77.6% full-line accuracy means roughly one in four lines still has at least one scansion error. For a scholarly tool, the threshold is probably 90%+ before a Ottomanist trusts the output without manual review. The gap from 77.6% to 90% is where the hard cases live — rare meters, dialectal pronunciation, deliberate poetic license. The paper's own annotation of 'flaws and freedoms the poet has taken' suggests the authors know this is where the ceiling lives. The obvious next experiment not run: testing on Ottoman script directly, where the diacritical and character information the model currently lacks would be available. The authors explicitly chose the harder problem (modern Turkish spelling without scholarly transliteration marks), which is the right move for a practical tool — but it means the model's accuracy ceiling is artificially lowered by information loss at the input. The likely reason this wasn't run: the corpus is in modern Turkish, and building a parallel Ottoman-script corpus with scansion annotations is a separate multi-year project.