Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 53 references

How Humans and LLMs Organize Conceptual Knowledge: Exploring Subordinate Categories in Italian

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read For 187 basic-level Italian categories, open LLMs and humans produce different subordinate exemplars, with top-list overlap falling below 25%.

desk verdict Useful new Italian subordinate-level category dataset; the low-alignment claim is plausible but the overlap numbers need chance baselines and more than five LLM runs. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21301 v1 pith:3LUKBHO2 submitted 2025-05-27 cs.CL cs.AI

Andrea Pedrotti , Giulia Rambelli , Caterina Villani , Marianna Bolognesi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords subordinatecategoriesbasic-levelexemplargenerationtypicalitylargelanguagemodelsconceptualknowledgeItalianpsycholinguisticnormscategoryinduction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether large language models organize conceptual knowledge the way people do one level down from everyday categories: when asked for kinds of 'dog' or 'chair,' people give subordinate exemplars like 'labrador,' 'German shepherd,' and 'dachshund.' The authors collected 24,659 such exemplars from 365 Italian speakers for 187 basic-level concrete words, producing what they describe as the first psycholinguistic norms for subordinate-level category organization in Italian. They then asked eight open language and vision-language models to generate exemplars for the same words and compared the results with human norms on availability, typicality, and category induction. The paper reports low alignment: the best model matches humans on about 24% of the five most available exemplars, and models frequently produce fluent but unattested ad hoc or implausible expressions. The upshot is a new resource plus evidence that current open LLMs are not reliable stand-ins for human conceptual structure at this level, while being useful for some categories.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the exemplar availability score, a measure drawn from established Italian semantic norms: for each basic-level category, availability weights how many participants produced an exemplar, at what position in their response list, and how early it appeared, yielding a graded gold-standard ordering of subordinate members. A second mechanism is corpus attestation via the ItTenTen web corpus: an LLM output counts as valid if it occurs at least once in that corpus, and zero-frequency strings are labelled hallucinations and qualitatively grouped into ad hoc, nonsensical, foreign-language, conceptual-confusion, and imitation-based patterns. A third mechanism is a perplexity-based forced-choice evaluation for category induction and typicality detection, in which models choose between candidate categories or typical/atypical sentences, making the comparison close-ended and reproducible. These three mechanisms together convert free-form lists into comparable ranked structures.

What would settle it

Take the 187 basic-level categories, ask a new sample of Italian speakers to rate each LLM-generated string (both corpus-attested and zero-frequency) as an acceptable, conventional type of X, and compare the resulting validity rates with the corpus-based ones; if speakers accept a substantial share of zero-frequency expressions, the reported hallucination rates are inflated. Alternatively, re-collect human exemplar norms from a second independent sample: if human-human top-5 overlap is as low as the model-human overlap (about 24%), the low-alignment result would reflect human production variability rather than an LLM-specific deficit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that subordinate-level exemplar availability, how readily speakers produce a kind/type exemplar for a basic category, is a graded human structure that current open LLMs only partially capture. In generation, larger models produce up to 82% corpus-valid Italian expressions, but valid is not the same as correct: zero-frequency strings are often imitation-based extensions (red California fir), implausible composites (geranium with oak leaves), or ad hoc instances (hallway dresser). The overlap between human and machine top exemplars is below 25% even for the best model, and it is lowest for body parts and furnishing and highest for foods and animals. In forced-choice tasks, models identify the basic-level category of human exemplars almost perfectly (93-98% accuracy) but fail much more on the corresponding 12 superordinate categories (38-64%), and typicality detection drops as categories contain more similarly available exemplars. Vision-language models do not close the gap: one vision model even lists other basic-level tree species as subordinate exemplars of fir.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a generated expression counts as a valid Italian subordinate term exactly when it appears at least once in the ItTenTen web corpus, with corpus absence marking hallucination; this proxy is never checked against human judgments, and the paper itself shows corpus-attested items can be category-inappropriate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The new Italian dataset extends existing Italian semantic norms with subordinate-level exemplars plus dominance, availability, mean rank order, and first-occurrence measures for 187 basic-level concepts.
  • Because valid-but-not-correct exemplars are frequent, NLP pipelines that use LLM-generated subordinate terms (ontology population, knowledge-base construction, vocabulary teaching) will need human-in-the-loop verification.
  • The five hallucination patterns provide a checklist for evaluating category-aware generation: ad hoc instances, nonsensical composites, foreign-language items, conceptual confusion, and imitation-based overgeneralization.
  • The sharp drop from basic-level to superordinate-level category induction (93-98% down to 38-64%) implies that more general taxonomic reasoning is a specific weakness of these models, not a general categorization failure.
  • Typicality judgments are recoverable when the availability gap between typical and atypical exemplars is large, but they flatten as categories accumulate many similarly available members, so LLMs mirror human typicality only where human structure is sharply graded.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The corpus-attestation filter likely cuts both ways: zero-frequency strings may include perfectly acceptable novel Italian compounds, while corpus-attested strings can be category-inappropriate (a different tree species listed under fir), so both the validity rates and the hallucination counts probably bracket true semantic correctness rather than measure it; a human acceptability rating study on
  • The human and machine generation tasks are not perfectly matched: humans free-list in a self-paced survey, while models receive a few-shot prompt with an appliance example, so part of the low top-5 overlap could come from instruction differences rather than from different category stores; matching the elicitation format more closely would isolate the structural claim.
  • If the paper's domain-level pattern holds, a testable prediction follows: for categories dominated by encyclopedic or textual knowledge (foods, vehicles), future model generations will approach human overlap, while for categories grounded in bodily experience (body parts) or object geometry (furnishing), the gap will persist.
  • The results imply that valid exemplar is not a single concept: a string can be well-formed, attested, intended, and correct, and these four dimensions come apart in LLM output; future datasets could score each dimension separately.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a new Italian psycholinguistic dataset of human-generated subordinate-level exemplars for 187 basic-level concrete categories, collected from 365 Italian speakers. It evaluates eight open LLMs and vLMs on exemplar generation, category induction, and typicality prediction. The headline result is a low alignment between human and LLM 'most available' exemplars, with top-5 overlap below 25% for all models, and higher validity for larger text models. The paper also reports that LLMs struggle with superordinate category induction and with typicality detection when categories have many similarly available exemplars.

Significance. If the results withstand the methodological concerns below, the paper would make a useful contribution: a novel psycholinguistic resource for Italian subordinate categories, an open comparison of multiple open models, and a clear demonstration that current open LLMs do not reproduce human subordinate-level availability. The data and code are promised to be released, which supports reproducibility. The closed-form subtasks (category induction, typicality) are a good complement to the generative task, and the qualitative hallucination taxonomy is insightful. However, the headline quantitative claim depends on a small-sample LLM availability estimate and lacks chance baselines, so the significance is conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2, Table 2; §6] The central 'low alignment' result is based on LLM availability rankings computed from only five generation runs per category (Appendix B.5). With N=5, the availability score in Eq. (4) is quantized in units of 0.2 and contains many ties, so the top-5 most available set is partly arbitrary and unstable. The paper reports no variance, stability, or chance baseline for the overlaps, and the observed 10–24% values in Table 2 could reflect sampling noise in the LLM ranking rather than categorical misalignment. To support the headline claim, the authors should increase the number of runs, report bootstrap confidence intervals or stability across runs, and compare against a chance baseline such as random ranking of the model's valid exemplars.
  2. [§4.1, Table 1; §4.2] The operationalization of 'valid exemplar' as 'appears at least once in ItTenTen' conflates corpus attestation with semantic correctness. The paper itself shows that idefics2-8B lists other tree species (acacia, eucalyptus, maple) as exemplars of abete 'fir' (Section 4.2); these are corpus-attested but category-inappropriate. This conflation affects the interpretation of the validity percentages in Table 1, the hallucination taxonomy in Appendix B.8, and the composition of the 'valid' sets used in Table 2. The authors should validate a sample of generated items with human judgments and distinguish false negatives (rare but real expressions) from genuine hallucinations.
  3. [§6; Table 2] Even if the sampling issue were fixed, the 'low alignment' claim would need a chance baseline to be meaningful. For categories with many possible subordinate labels, two independent rankings can have low top-5 overlap by chance; conversely, the human data themselves may have limited split-half reliability over the top-5 sets. The paper does not report any null-model comparison or human-human agreement, so the observed 24% could be close to chance. Adding such baselines is necessary to interpret the magnitude of the alignment.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; §2.2; RQ1] The paper uses 'basic-level categories' and 'subordinate level' inconsistently; the abstract says 'first attempt to examine the organization of categories by analyzing exemplars produced at the subordinate level,' while RQ1 and §2.2 say 'investigate the organization of basic-level categories.' Clarify that the stimuli are basic-level categories and the generated exemplars are subordinate-level labels.
  2. [Table 2] The overlap metric is not fully defined; specify the denominator (e.g., number of categories where at least one match occurs versus proportion of LLM top-n items appearing in human top-n) and the distinction between top-1 identity and set overlaps for top-3/top-5.
  3. [Appendix B.5] The Italian prompt contains grammatical errors (e.g., 'elenca tutta i tipi di' should be 'elenca tutti i tipi di'; 'denota una concetto' should be 'denota un concetto'); correct the prompt if it is to be reused.
  4. [Limitations; Ethical Considerations] The Limitations section states 'Model are trained' (typo for 'Models') and Ethical Considerations uses 'Euro e 1.80' instead of '€1.80.'
  5. [Ethical Considerations] The claim that 'all LLMs have not been exposed to these stimuli' rests on the unverifiable assumption that no training corpus contained similar data; this should be phrased as a plausibility argument rather than a guarantee.
  6. [§3] The sentence 'only 13.9% of the top-5 dominant exemplars overlap with the ranking of the top-5 most available exemplars' is ambiguous; it should specify whether this is the proportion of categories where the sets overlap exactly, overlap in any position, or the proportion of top-5 items that coincide.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LLM evaluation is an independent empirical benchmark; the few self-citations are background only.

full rationale

The paper's central comparisons (Tables 1-2, Subtasks A and B) evaluate LLM outputs against an independently collected human dataset. Human availability scores come from the participant generation task in Section 3; LLM outputs are produced from a few-shot prompt (Appendix B.5) without any fitting, calibration, or parameter estimation against those human scores. Overlap and accuracy are computed after the fact, and Subtasks A and B use the model's own perplexity on closed-form prompts rather than any quantity derived from the gold standard. The only self-citations (Bolognesi et al., 2020; Kauf et al., 2023) are contextual background and are not load-bearing for the empirical claims. The main measurement caveats—validity operationalized as presence in ItTenTen (Section 4.1), five generation runs per category (Appendix B.5), and exact string matching (Limitations item 2)—are robustness or validity concerns about the benchmark, not circular reductions: the predicted quantities are not defined in terms of the human answers, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The paper also openly acknowledges the substring-cue confound in Subtask A and the string-matching limitation, which further supports treating these as empirical weaknesses rather than hidden circularities.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. Its central empirical claims rest on two hand-chosen thresholds (dominance cutoff and corpus-attestation threshold) plus three domain assumptions about what human lists, corpus presence, and data non-release mean. The availability formula's exponential decay constant is inherited from Montefinese et al. (2012), not fitted here.

free parameters (2)
  • Dominance cutoff = 0.1
    Section 3: only exemplars produced by at least 10% of participants are retained, yielding 1,696 representative exemplars; this hand-chosen threshold determines the human gold-standard set used in every LLM comparison.
  • Corpus attestation threshold = presence in ItTenTen (frequency > 0)
    Section 4.1: LLM outputs are classified as valid or hallucinated based solely on whether the string appears in the ItTenTen corpus; the choice of this binary threshold drives Table 1 validity scores and the hallucination taxonomy.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Human-generated exemplar lists are the gold standard for subordinate-level category organization.
    Study design, Sections 3 and 4.2: all LLM comparisons use human responses as the reference; this presupposes that population-level exemplar frequencies reflect conceptual organization.
  • domain assumption Presence in ItTenTen is a valid indicator that an expression is a real Italian lexical item.
    Section 4.1: corpus attestation is used to separate valid exemplars from hallucinations; this equates web-corpus occurrence with linguistic conventionality.
  • domain assumption The human data were not seen by any tested LLM because they were collected in 2023 and never released.
    Ethical Considerations: the authors assert this to justify treating LLM outputs as independent of the human dataset; the claim is unverifiable from the preprint.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Humans and LLMs Organize Conceptual Knowledge: Exploring Subordinate Categories in Italian." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3LUKBHO2

@misc{pith2026250521301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Humans and LLMs Organize Conceptual Knowledge: Exploring Subordinate Categories in Italian},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3LUKBHO2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21301}
}
read the original abstract

People can categorize the same entity at multiple taxonomic levels, such as basic (bear), superordinate (animal), and subordinate (grizzly bear). While prior research has focused on basic-level categories, this study is the first attempt to examine the organization of categories by analyzing exemplars produced at the subordinate level. We present a new Italian psycholinguistic dataset of human-generated exemplars for 187 concrete words. We then use these data to evaluate whether textual and vision LLMs produce meaningful exemplars that align with human category organization across three key tasks: exemplar generation, category induction, and typicality judgment. Our findings show a low alignment between humans and LLMs, consistent with previous studies. However, their performance varies notably across different semantic domains. Ultimately, this study highlights both the promises and the constraints of using AI-generated exemplars to support psychological and linguistic research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21301 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visual representation of studies’ design. En [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Number of valid exemplars across 12 superor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Briony Banks and Louise Connell. 2023. Category production norms for 117 concrete and abstract categories. Behavior Research Methods, 55(3):1292--1313

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Lawrence W Barsalou. 1982. Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts. Memory & cognition, 10(1):82--93

    work page 1982

  3. [3]

    Lawrence W Barsalou. 1983. Ad hoc categories. Memory & cognition, 11:211--227

    work page 1983

  4. [4]

    Lawrence W Barsalou, Ava Santos, W Kyle Simmons, and Christine D Wilson. 2008. Language and simulation in conceptual processing. Symbols, embodiment, and meaning, pages 245--283

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Ruairidh M Battleday, Joshua C Peterson, and Thomas L Griffiths. 2020. Capturing human categorization of natural images by combining deep networks and cognitive models. Nature communications, 11(1):5418

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Bender and Alexander Koller

    Emily M. Bender and Alexander Koller. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.463 Climbing towards NLU : On meaning, form, and understanding in the age of data . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5185--5198, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.463 2020

  7. [7]

    Marianna Bolognesi, Christian Burgers, and Tommaso Caselli. 2020. On abstraction: decoupling conceptual concreteness and categorical specificity. Cognitive Processing, 21(3):365--381

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S

    Rishi Bommasani, Drew A. Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S. Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosselut, Emma Brunskill, Erik Brynjolfsson, Shyamal Buch, Dallas Card, Rodrigo Castellon, Niladri Chatterji, Annie Chen, Kathleen Creel, Jared Quincy Davis, Dora Demszky, Chris Donahue, Moussa Doumbouya, Esin Durmus, Stef...

    arXiv 2022

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffr...

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Nichol Castro, Taylor Curley, and Christopher Hertzog. 2021. Category norms with a cross-sectional sample of adults in the united states: Consideration of cohort, age, and historical effects on semantic categories. Behavior research methods, 53:898--917

    2021

  3. [11]

    Henri Cohen and Claire Lefebvre. 2005. Handbook of categorization in cognitive science. Elsevier

    2005

  4. [12]

    Charles P Davis and Eiling Yee. 2021. Building semantic memory from embodied and distributional language experience. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 12(5):e1555

    2021

  5. [13]

    Luciano Floridi and Massimo Chiriatti. 2020. Gpt-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30:681--694

    2020

  6. [14]

    Fritz Günther, Marco Marelli, Sam Tureski, and Marco Alessandro Petilli. 2023. ViSpa (vision spaces): A computer-vision-based representation system for individual images and concept prototypes, with large-scale evaluation. Psychol. Rev., 130(4):896--934

    2023

  7. [15]

    Lala Hajibayova. 2013. Basic-level categories: A review. Journal of Information Science, 39(5):676--687

    2013

  8. [16]

    Hannes Hansen and Martin N Hebart. 2022. Semantic features of object concepts generated with GPT -3. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society

    2022

  9. [17]

    Tom Heyman and Geert Heyman. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819830949 Can prediction-based distributional semantic models predict typicality? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(8):2084--2109. PMID: 30704340

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Tom Heyman and Geert Heyman. 2024. The impact of chatgpt on human data collection: A case study involving typicality norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 56(5):4974--4981

    2024

  11. [19]

    Andrew Jaegle, Felix Gimeno, Andy Brock, Oriol Vinyals, Andrew Zisserman, and Joao Carreira. 2021. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v139/jaegle21a.html Perceiver: General perception with iterative attention . In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning...

    2021

  12. [20]

    Milo s Jakub \' c ek, Adam Kilgarriff, Vojt e ch Kov \'a r , Pavel Rychl \`y , and V \' t Suchomel. 2013. The tenten corpus family. In 7th international corpus linguistics conference CL, pages 125--127. Valladolid

    2013

  13. [21]

    Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas ...

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Antoine Roux, Arthur Mensch, Blanche Savary, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de Las Casas, Emma Bou Hanna, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Bour, Guillaume Lample, L'elio Renard Lavaud, Lucile Saulnier, Marie-Ann...

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Carina Kauf, Anna A Ivanova, Giulia Rambelli, Emmanuele Chersoni, Jingyuan Selena She, Zawad Chowdhury, Evelina Fedorenko, and Alessandro Lenci. 2023. Event knowledge in large language models: the gap between the impossible and the unlikely. Cognitive Science, 47(11):e13386

    2023

  16. [24]

    Hugo Laurençon, L \'e o Tronchon, Matthieu Cord, and Victor Sanh. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.02246 What matters when building vision-language models?

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/file/6dcf277ea32ce3288914faf369fe6de0-Paper-Conference.pdf Visual instruction tuning . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, pages 34...

    2023

  18. [26]

    LlamaTeam. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783 The llama 3 herd of models

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Max M Louwerse. 2018. Knowing the meaning of a word by the linguistic and perceptual company it keeps. Topics in cognitive science, 10(3):573--589

    2018

  20. [28]

    Gary Lupyan. 2012. Linguistically modulated perception and cognition: The label-feedback hypothesis. Frontiers in psychology, 3:54

    2012

  21. [29]

    Gary Lupyan and Molly Lewis. 2019. From words-as-mappings to words-as-cues: The role of language in semantic knowledge. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(10):1319--1337

    2019

  22. [30]

    Ivanova, Idan A

    Kyle Mahowald, Anna A. Ivanova, Idan A. Blank, Nancy Kanwisher, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Evelina Fedorenko. 2024. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2024.01.011 Dissociating language and thought in large language models . Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 28(6):517--540

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Gary Marcus. 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.06177 The next decade in ai: Four steps towards robust artificial intelligence

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kanishka Misra, Allyson Ettinger, and Julia Rayz. 2021. Do language models learn typicality judgments from text? In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43, pages 216--222

    2021

  25. [33]

    Kanishka Misra, Julia Rayz, and Allyson Ettinger. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.213 COMPS : Conceptual minimal pair sentences for testing robust property knowledge and its inheritance in pre-trained language models . In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of ...

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Maria Montefinese, Ettore Ambrosini, Beth Fairfield, and Nicola Mammarella. 2012. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:22096209 Semantic memory: A feature-based analysis and new norms for italian . Behavior Research Methods, 45:440 -- 461

    2012

  27. [35]

    Gregory Murphy. 2002. The big book of concepts. MIT press

    2002

  28. [36]

    Cristina Izura Natividad Hernández-Muñoz and Andrew W. Ellis. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440500339119 Cognitive aspects of lexical availability . European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(5):730--755

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    Animesh Nighojkar, Anna Khlyzova, and John Licato. 2022. Cognitive modeling of semantic fluency using transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.09719

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Joshua C Peterson, Joshua T Abbott, and Thomas L Griffiths. 2018. Evaluating (and improving) the correspondence between deep neural networks and human representations. Cognitive science, 42(8):2648--2669

    2018

  31. [39]

    Joseph Renner, Pascal Denis, Remi Gilleron, and Ang \`e le Brunelli \`e re. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.167 Exploring category structure with contextual language models and lexical semantic networks . In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European C...

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Eleanor Rosch. 1975. Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 104(3):192

    1975

  33. [41]

    Eleanor Rosch. 1978. Principles of categorization. Cognition and categorization/Erlbaum

    1978

  34. [42]

    Eleanor Rosch, Carolyn B Mervis, Wayne D Gray, David M Johnson, and Penny Boyes-Braem. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive psychology, 8(3):382--439

    1976

  35. [43]

    Brian H Ross and Gregory L Murphy. 1999. Food for thought: Cross-classification and category organization in a complex real-world domain. Cognitive psychology, 38(4):495--553

    1999

  36. [44]

    Prisha Samadarshi, Mariam Mustafa, Anushka Kulkarni, Raven Rothkopf, Tuhin Chakrabarty, and Smaranda Muresan. 2024. Connecting the dots: Evaluating abstract reasoning capabilities of llms using the new york times connections word game. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11012

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    V \' t Suchomel, Jan Pomik \'a lek, et al. 2012. Efficient web crawling for large text corpora. In Proceedings of the seventh Web as Corpus Workshop (WAC7), pages 39--43

    2012

  38. [46]

    Neha Upadhyay, Kritika Mittal, and Sashank Varma. 2022. Typicality gradients in computer vision models. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, volume 44

    2022

  39. [47]

    Rens van Hoef, Louise Connell, and Dermot Lynott. 2023. The effects of sensorimotor and linguistic information on the basic-level advantage. Cognition, 241:105606

    2023

  40. [48]

    Siddhartha K Vemuri, Raj Sanjay Shah, and Sashank Varma. 2024. How Well Do Deep Learning Models Capture Human Concepts? The Case of the Typicality Effect . Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 46:5160--5167

    2024

  41. [49]

    Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-5446 GLUE : A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding . In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop B lackbox NLP : A...

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Xiaohua Zhai, Basil Mustafa, Alexander Kolesnikov, and Lucas Beyer. 2023. Sigmoid loss for language image pre-training. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 11975--11986

    2023

  44. [52]

    URL: " 'urlintro :=

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before...

  45. [53]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.