Title: `BLiMP: A Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for English`
Abstract: `https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.00582`
BLiMP is a challenge set for evaluating what language models (LMs) know about
major grammatical phenomena in English. BLiMP consists of 67 sub-datasets, each
containing 1000 minimal pairs isolating specific contrasts in syntax, morphology,
or semantics. The data is automatically generated according to expert-crafted
grammars.
Homepage: https://github.com/alexwarstadt/blimp
### Citation
```
@article{warstadt2019blimp,
author = {Warstadt, Alex and Parrish, Alicia and Liu, Haokun and Mohananey, Anhad and Peng, Wei and Wang, Sheng-Fu and Bowman, Samuel R.},
title = {BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for English},
journal = {Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics},
volume = {8},
number = {},
pages = {377-392},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1162/tacl\_a\_00321},
URL = {https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00321},
eprint = {https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00321},
abstract = { We introduce The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs (BLiMP),1 a challenge set for evaluating the linguistic knowledge of language models (LMs) on major grammatical phenomena in English. BLiMP consists of 67 individual datasets, each containing 1,000 minimal pairs—that is, pairs of minimally different sentences that contrast in grammatical acceptability and isolate specific phenomenon in syntax, morphology, or semantics. We generate the data according to linguist-crafted grammar templates, and human aggregate agreement with the labels is 96.4\%. We evaluate n-gram, LSTM, and Transformer (GPT-2 and Transformer-XL) LMs by observing whether they assign a higher probability to the acceptable sentence in each minimal pair. We find that state-of-the-art models identify morphological contrasts related to agreement reliably, but they struggle with some subtle semantic and syntactic phenomena, such as negative polarity items and extraction islands. }
}
```
### Subtasks
List or describe tasks defined in this folder, and their names here:
*`task_name`: `1-sentence description of what this particular task does`
*`task_name2`: .....
### Checklist
For adding novel benchmarks/datasets to the library:
* [ ] Is the task an existing benchmark in the literature?
* [ ] Have you referenced the original paper that introduced the task?
* [ ] If yes, does the original paper provide a reference implementation? If so, have you checked against the reference implementation and documented how to run such a test?
If other tasks on this dataset are already supported:
* [ ] Is the "Main" variant of this task clearly denoted?
* [ ] Have you provided a short sentence in a README on what each new variant adds / evaluates?
* [ ] Have you noted which, if any, published evaluation setups are matched by this variant?
