Extending Minimal Pairs with Ordinal Surprisal Curves and Entropy Across Applied Domains
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The minimal pairs paradigm of comparing model probabilities for contrasting completions has proven useful for evaluating linguistic knowledge in language models, yet its application has largely been confined to binary grammaticality judgments over syntactic phenomena. Additionally, standard prompting-based evaluation requires expensive text generation, may elicit post-hoc rationalizations rather than model judgments, and discards information about model uncertainty. We address both limitations by extending surprisal-based evaluation from binary grammaticality contrasts to ordinal-scaled classification and scoring tasks across multiple domains. Rather than asking models to generate answers, we measure the information-theoretic "surprise" (negative log probability) they assign to each position on rating scales (e.g., 1-5 or 1-9), yielding full surprisal curves that reveal both the model's preferred response and its uncertainty via entropy. We explore this framework across four domains: social-ecological-technological systems classification, causal statement identification (binary and scaled), figurative language detection, and deductive qualitative coding. Across these domains, surprisal curves produce interpretable classification signals with clear minima near expected ordinal scale positions, and entropy over the completion tended to distinguish genuinely ambiguous items from easier items.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 36 of its 80 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Mar 2026.
Builds on
36 of 80 references.
References · 36
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2022PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathwayscited by 5,304
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,748
- 2022Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language modelscited by 1,970
- 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,928
- 2019Language Models as Knowledge Bases?cited by 1,922
- 2022Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Knowcited by 1,783
- 2021Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Modelscited by 1,371
- 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
24 more
- 2019BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipelinecited by 1,046
- 2023Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMscited by 946
- 2020A Primer in BERTology: What we know about how BERT workscited by 807
- 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 553
- 2018What you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic propertiescited by 452
- 2023Causal Reasoning and Large Language Models: Opening a New Frontier for Causalitycited by 348
- 2021Surface Form Competition: Why the Highest Probability Answer Isn't Always Rightcited by 256
- 2023A Survey of Confidence Estimation and Calibration in Large Language Modelscited by 253
- 2018Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 239
- 2021A Survey of Human-in-the-loop for Machine Learningcited by 214
- 2020Information-Theoretic Probing for Linguistic Structurecited by 204
- 2017What do Neural Machine Translation Models Learn about Morphology?cited by 165
- 2020On the Predictive Power of Neural Language Models for Human Real-Time Comprehension Behaviorcited by 115
- 2018What do RNN Language Models Learn about Filler-Gap Dependencies?cited by 86
- 2025Can LLMs Replace Human Evaluators? An Empirical Study of LLM-as-a-Judge in Software Engineeringcited by 64
- 2024Language models align with human judgments on key grammatical constructionscited by 49
- 2023From task structures to world models: What do LLMs know?cited by 46
- 2020Exploring BERT's Sensitivity to Lexical Cues using Tests from Semantic Primingcited by 41
- 2024JuStRank: Benchmarking LLM Judges for System Rankingcited by 27
- 2019Structural Supervision Improves Learning of Non-Local Grammatical Dependenciescited by 24
- 2024Decoding Probing: Revealing Internal Linguistic Structures in Neural Language Models using Minimal Pairscited by 24
- 2022Language model acceptability judgements are not always robust to contextcited by 22
- 2025Large Language Model probabilities cannot distinguish between possible and impossible languagecited by 5
- 2025Exploring Gaps in the APS: Direct Minimal Pair Analysis in LLM Syntactic Assessmentscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.