FreqBLiMP: Frequency-Controlled Minimal Pairs Reveal Robustness and Fragility of LLMs Under Lexical Rarity
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Minimal-pair benchmarks such as BLiMP evaluate linguistic knowledge by testing whether language models (LMs) prefer acceptable sentences over minimally different unacceptable ones. However, these benchmarks largely ignore lexical frequency variation, despite lexical frequency being a pervasive and highly skewed property of natural language use. Consequently, existing evaluations do not test whether grammatical preferences remain stable when contrasts involve rare lexical items. We introduce FreqBLiMP, a frequency-controlled extension of BLiMP that regenerates all 67 paradigms under explicit Zipf-frequency regimes while preserving each minimal-pair's grammatical contrast. Evaluating multiple open-weight LLM families across scales, we find that decreasing lexical frequency produces a consistent, monotonic decrease in sentence likelihood, but only a modest reduction in overall contrastive acceptability accuracy. However, this aggregate stability masks substantial variation across linguistic phenomena, with LLMs remaining robust on overt morphosyntactic generalization while degrading on phenomena that require lemma-specific information.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Sep 2026.
Builds on
18 of 31 references.
References · 18
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2018Neural Network Acceptability Judgmentscited by 952
- 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 553
- 2022Large Language Models Struggle to Learn Long-Tail Knowledgecited by 452
- 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 350
- 2018Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 239
- 2018Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchicallycited by 210
- 2024A Note on Shumailov et al. (2024): `AI Models Collapse When Trained on Recursively Generated Data'cited by 114
- 2018What do RNN Language Models Learn about Filler-Gap Dependencies?cited by 86
- 2024Model Collapse Demystified: The Case of Regressioncited by 80
- 2021Refining Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 41
- 2024Frequency Explains the Inverse Correlation of Large Language Models' Size, Training Data Amount, and Surprisal's Fit to Reading Timescited by 37
6 more
- 2023A Discerning Several Thousand Judgments: GPT-3 Rates the Article + Adjective + Numeral + Noun Constructioncited by 22
- 2024How to Make the Most of LLMs' Grammatical Knowledge for Acceptability Judgmentscited by 14
- 2022Does BERT really agree ? Fine-grained Analysis of Lexical Dependence on a Syntactic Taskcited by 13
- 2024What Goes Into a LM Acceptability Judgment? Rethinking the Impact of Frequency and Lengthcited by 10
- 2025Domain Regeneration: How well do LLMs match syntactic properties of text domains?cited by 6
- 2025LongTail-Swap: benchmarking language models' abilities on rare wordscited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.