Commentary of Gongyang, Commentary of Guliang, and Commentary of Zuo are collectively called the Three Commentaries on the Spring and Autumn Annals, which are the supplement and interpretation of the content of Spring and Autumn Annals with value in historical and literary research. In traditional research paradigms, scholars often explored the differences between the Three Commentaries within the details in contexts. Starting from the view of computational humanities, this paper examines the differences in the language style of the Three Commentaries through the representation of language, which takes the methods of deep learning. Specifically, this study vectorizes the context at word and sentence levels. It maps them into the same plane to find the differences between the use of words and sentences in the Three Commentaries. The results show that the Commentary of Gongyang and the Commentary of Guliang are relatively similar, while the Commentary of Zuo is significantly different. This paper verifies the feasibility of deep learning methods in stylistics study under computational humanities. It provides a valuable perspective for studying the Three Commentaries on the Spring and Autumn Annals.

The digitization of ancient books necessitates the implementation of automatic word segmentation and part-of-speech tagging. However, the existing research on this topic encounters pressing issues, including suboptimal efficiency and precision, which require immediate resolution. This study employs a methodology that combines word segmentation and part-of-speech tagging. It establishes a correlation between fonts and radicals, trains the Radical2Vec radical vector representation model, and integrates it with the SikuRoBERTa word vector representation model. Finally, it connects the BiLSTM-CRF neural network.The study investigates the combination of word segmentation and part-of-speech tagging through an experimental approach using a specific data set. In the evaluation dataset, the F1 score for word segmentation is 95.75%, indicating a high level of accuracy. Similarly, the F1 score for part-of-speech tagging is 91.65%, suggesting a satisfactory performance in this task. This model enhances the efficiency and precision of the processing of ancient books, thereby facilitating the advancement of digitization efforts for ancient books and ensuring the preservation and advancement of ancient book heritage.

This paper present the results of the First International Ancient Chinese Transalation Bakeoff (EvaHan), which is a shared task of the Ancient Language Translation Workshop (ALT2023) and a co-located event of the 19th Edition of the Machine Translation Summit 2023 (MTS 2023). We described the motivation for having an international shared contest, as well as the datasets and tracks. The contest consists of two modalities, closed and open. In the closed modality, the participants are only allowed to use the training data, the partic-ipating teams achieved the highest BLEU scores of 27.3315 and 1.1102 in the tasks of translating Ancient Chinese to Modern Chinese and translating Ancient Chinese to English, respectively. In the open mode, contestants can only use any available data and models. The participating teams achieved the highest BLEU scores of 29.6832 and 6.5493 in the ancient Chinese to modern and ancient Chinese to English tasks, respectively.

This paper presents the results of the First Ancient Chinese Word Segmentation and POS Tagging Bakeoff (EvaHan), which was held at the Second Workshop on Language Technologies for Historical and Ancient Languages (LT4HALA) 2022, in the context of the 13th Edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2022). We give the motivation for having an international shared contest, as well as the data and tracks. The contest is consisted of two modalities, closed and open. In the closed modality, the participants are only allowed to use the training data, obtained the highest F1 score of 96.03% and 92.05% in word segmentation and POS tagging. In the open modality, the participants can use whatever resource they have, with the highest F1 score of 96.34% and 92.56% in word segmentation and POS tagging. The scores on the blind test dataset decrease around 3 points, which shows that the out-of-vocabulary words still are the bottleneck for lexical analyzers.