@inproceedings{de-souza-etal-2025-memory,
title = "What does memory retrieval leave on the table? Modelling the Cost of Semi-Compositionality with {MINERVA}2 and s{BERT}",
author = "de Souza, Sydelle and
Vegner, Ivan and
Mollica, Francis and
Doumas, Leonidas A. A.",
editor = "Boleda, Gemma and
Roth, Michael",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning",
month = jul,
year = "2025",
address = "Vienna, Austria",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2025.conll-1.19/",
doi = "10.18653/v1/2025.conll-1.19",
pages = "291--311",
ISBN = "979-8-89176-271-8",
abstract = "Despite being ubiquitous in natural language, collocations (e.g., kick+habit) incur a unique processing cost, compared to compositional phrases (kick+door) and idioms (kick+bucket). We confirm this cost with behavioural data as well as MINERVA2, a memory model, suggesting that collocations constitute a distinct linguistic category. While the model fails to fully capture the observed human processing patterns, we find that below a specific item frequency threshold, the model{'}s retrieval failures align with human reaction times across conditions. This suggests an alternative processing mechanism that activates when memory retrieval fails."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="de-souza-etal-2025-memory">
<titleInfo>
<title>What does memory retrieval leave on the table? Modelling the Cost of Semi-Compositionality with MINERVA2 and sBERT</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Sydelle</namePart>
<namePart type="family">de Souza</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Ivan</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Vegner</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Francis</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Mollica</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Leonidas</namePart>
<namePart type="given">A</namePart>
<namePart type="given">A</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Doumas</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2025-07</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Gemma</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Boleda</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Michael</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Roth</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Vienna, Austria</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
<identifier type="isbn">979-8-89176-271-8</identifier>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Despite being ubiquitous in natural language, collocations (e.g., kick+habit) incur a unique processing cost, compared to compositional phrases (kick+door) and idioms (kick+bucket). We confirm this cost with behavioural data as well as MINERVA2, a memory model, suggesting that collocations constitute a distinct linguistic category. While the model fails to fully capture the observed human processing patterns, we find that below a specific item frequency threshold, the model’s retrieval failures align with human reaction times across conditions. This suggests an alternative processing mechanism that activates when memory retrieval fails.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">de-souza-etal-2025-memory</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.18653/v1/2025.conll-1.19</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2025.conll-1.19/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2025-07</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>291</start>
<end>311</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T What does memory retrieval leave on the table? Modelling the Cost of Semi-Compositionality with MINERVA2 and sBERT
%A de Souza, Sydelle
%A Vegner, Ivan
%A Mollica, Francis
%A Doumas, Leonidas A. A.
%Y Boleda, Gemma
%Y Roth, Michael
%S Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning
%D 2025
%8 July
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Vienna, Austria
%@ 979-8-89176-271-8
%F de-souza-etal-2025-memory
%X Despite being ubiquitous in natural language, collocations (e.g., kick+habit) incur a unique processing cost, compared to compositional phrases (kick+door) and idioms (kick+bucket). We confirm this cost with behavioural data as well as MINERVA2, a memory model, suggesting that collocations constitute a distinct linguistic category. While the model fails to fully capture the observed human processing patterns, we find that below a specific item frequency threshold, the model’s retrieval failures align with human reaction times across conditions. This suggests an alternative processing mechanism that activates when memory retrieval fails.
%R 10.18653/v1/2025.conll-1.19
%U https://aclanthology.org/2025.conll-1.19/
%U https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.conll-1.19
%P 291-311
Markdown (Informal)
[What does memory retrieval leave on the table? Modelling the Cost of Semi-Compositionality with MINERVA2 and sBERT](https://aclanthology.org/2025.conll-1.19/) (de Souza et al., CoNLL 2025)
ACL