Papers › ZhoBLiMP: a Systematic Assessment of Language Models with Linguistic Minimal Pairs in Chinese
ZhoBLiMP: a Systematic Assessment of Language Models with Linguistic Minimal Pairs in Chinese
Yikang Liu, Yeting Shen, Hongao Zhu, Lilong Xu, Zhiheng Qian, Siyuan Song, Kejia Zhang, Jialong Tang, Pei Zhang, Baosong Yang, Rui Wang, Hai Hu
Whether and how language models (LMs) acquire the syntax of natural languages has been widely evaluated under the minimal pair paradigm. However, a lack of wide-coverage benchmarks in languages other than English has constrained systematic investigations into the issue. Addressing it, we first introduce ZhoBLiMP, the most comprehensive benchmark of linguistic minimal pairs for Chinese to date, with 118 paradigms, covering 15 linguistic phenomena. We then train 20 LMs of different sizes (14M to 1.4B) on Chinese corpora of various volumes (100M to 3B tokens) and evaluate them along with 14 off-the-shelf LLMs on ZhoBLiMP. The overall results indicate that Chinese grammar can be mostly learned by models with around 500M parameters, trained on 1B tokens with one epoch, showing limited benefits for further scaling. Most (N=95) linguistic paradigms are of easy or medium difficulty for LMs, while there are still 13 paradigms that remain challenging even for models with up to 32B parameters. In regard to how LMs acquire Chinese grammar, we observe a U-shaped learning pattern in several phenomena, similar to those observed in child language acquisition.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections