mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

On the Limits of Minimal Pairs in Contrastive Evaluation

arXiv 2109.07465 ↗First posted 15 Sep 2021cs.CLcited by 15

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Minimal sentence pairs are frequently used to analyze the behavior of language models. It is often assumed that model behavior on contrastive pairs is predictive of model behavior at large. We argue that two conditions are necessary for this assumption to hold: First, a tested hypothesis should be well-motivated, since experiments show that contrastive evaluation can lead to false positives. Secondly, test data should be chosen such as to minimize distributional discrepancy between evaluation time and deployment time. For a good approximation of deployment-time decoding, we recommend that minimal pairs are created based on machine-generated text, as opposed to human-written references. We present a contrastive evaluation suite for English-German MT that implements this recommendation.

Key facts. Cited by 15 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Sep 2021.

Builds on

21 of 39 references.

References · 21

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2019fairseq: A Fast, Extensible Toolkit for Sequence Modelingcited by 1,486
  3. 2020Stanza: A Python Natural Language Processing Toolkit for Many Human Languagescited by 719
  4. 2020Making Monolingual Sentence Embeddings Multilingual using Knowledge Distillationcited by 591
  5. 2015Sequence Level Training with Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 568
  6. 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 553
  7. 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 350
  8. 2018Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 239
  9. 2018Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchicallycited by 210
  10. 2021Societal Biases in Language Generation: Progress and Challengescited by 201
  11. 2019Facebook FAIR's WMT19 News Translation Task Submissioncited by 179
  12. 2016Modeling Coverage for Neural Machine Translationcited by 110
9 more
  1. 2017Evaluating Discourse Phenomena in Neural Machine Translationcited by 87
  2. 2021Measuring and Increasing Context Usage in Context-Aware Machine Translationcited by 48
  3. 2019Lost in Translation: Loss and Decay of Linguistic Richness in Machine Translationcited by 45
  4. 2021CLiMP: A Benchmark for Chinese Language Model Evaluationcited by 44
  5. 2021Refining Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 41
  6. 2016How Grammatical is Character-level Neural Machine Translation? Assessing MT Quality with Contrastive Translation Pairscited by 39
  7. 2020It's not a Non-Issue: Negation as a Source of Error in Machine Translationcited by 19
  8. 2021Is Incoherence Surprising? Targeted Evaluation of Coherence Prediction from Language Modelscited by 15
  9. 2021Revisiting Negation in Neural Machine Translationcited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 2; 2023: 4; 2024: 3; 2025: 2; 2026: 3.

15 papers.

Sort: