Word associations have a longstanding tradition of being instrumental for investigating the organization of the mental lexicon. Despite their wide application in psychology and psycholinguistics, analyzing word associations remains challenging due to their inherent heterogeneity and variability, shaped by linguistic and extralinguistic factors. Existing word-association taxonomies often suffer limitations due to a lack of comprehensive frameworks that capture their complexity.To address these limitations, we introduce a linguistically motivated taxonomy consisting of co-existing meaning-related and form-related relations, while accounting for the directionality of word associations.We applied the taxonomy to a dataset of 1,300 word associations (FAMWA) and assessed it using various LLMs, analyzing their ability to classify word associations.The results show an improved inter-annotator agreement for our taxonomies compared to previous studies (𝜅 = .60 for meaning and 𝜅 = .58 for form). However, models such as GPT-4o perform only modestly in relation labeling (with accuracies of 46.2% for meaning and 78.3% for form), which calls into question their ability to fully grasp the underlying principles of human word associations.

Amid rising numbers of organizations producing counterfeit scholarly articles, it is important to quantify the prevalence of scientific misconduct.We assess the feasibility of automated text-based methods to determine the rate of scientific misconduct by analyzing linguistic differences between retracted and non-retracted papers.We find that retracted works show distinct phrase patterns and higher word repetition.Motivated by this, we evaluatetwo misconduct detection methods, a mixture distribution approach and a Transformer-based one.The best models achieve high accuracy (>0.9 F1) on detection of paper mill articles and automatically generated content, making them viable tools for flagging papers for closer review.We apply the classifiers to more than 300,000 paper abstracts, to quantify misconduct over time and find that our estimation methods accurately reproduce trends observed in the real data.

Successful machine learning systems currently rely on massive amounts of data, which are very effective in hiding some of the shallowness of the learned models. To help train models with more complex and compositional skills, we need challenging data, on which a system is successful only if it detects structure and regularities, that will allow it to generalize. In this paper, we describe a French dataset (BLM-AgrF) for learning the underlying rules of subject-verb agreement in sentences, developed in the BLM framework, a new task inspired by visual IQ tests known as Raven’s Progressive Matrices. In this task, an instance consists of sequences of sentences with specific attributes. To predict the correct answer as the next element of the sequence, a model must correctly detect the generative model used to produce the dataset. We provide details and share a dataset built following this methodology. Two exploratory baselines based on commonly used architectures show that despite the simplicity of the phenomenon, it is a complex problem for deep learning systems.

What do people know when they know the meaning of words? Word associations have been widely used to tap into lexical repre- sentations and their structure, as a way of probing semantic knowledge in humans. We investigate whether current word embedding spaces (contextualized and uncontextualized) can be considered good models of human lexi- cal knowledge by studying whether they have comparable characteristics to human associa- tion spaces. We study the three properties of association rank, asymmetry of similarity and triangle inequality. We find that word embeddings are good mod- els of some word associations properties. They replicate well human associations between words, and, like humans, their context-aware variants show violations of the triangle in- equality. While they do show asymmetry of similarities, their asymmetries do not map those of human association norms.