Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

CLiMP: A Benchmark for Chinese Language Model Evaluation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2101.11131 v1 pith:BNZM7A3M submitted 2021-01-26 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords chineseclimpmodelsagreementbertcoveringlanguagelinguistic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Linguistically informed analyses of language models (LMs) contribute to the understanding and improvement of these models. Here, we introduce the corpus of Chinese linguistic minimal pairs (CLiMP), which can be used to investigate what knowledge Chinese LMs acquire. CLiMP consists of sets of 1,000 minimal pairs (MPs) for 16 syntactic contrasts in Mandarin, covering 9 major Mandarin linguistic phenomena. The MPs are semi-automatically generated, and human agreement with the labels in CLiMP is 95.8%. We evaluated 11 different LMs on CLiMP, covering n-grams, LSTMs, and Chinese BERT. We find that classifier-noun agreement and verb complement selection are the phenomena that models generally perform best at. However, models struggle the most with the ba construction, binding, and filler-gap dependencies. Overall, Chinese BERT achieves an 81.8% average accuracy, while the performances of LSTMs and 5-grams are only moderately above chance level.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Chengyu-Bench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Chinese Idiom Understanding and Use

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Chengyu-Bench is a 2,937-example human-verified benchmark showing LLMs are strong at idiom sentiment classification but weak at appropriateness and open cloze generation.

Pith tools