QFrBLiMP: a Quebec-French Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we introduce the Quebec-French Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs (QFrBLiMP), a corpus designed to evaluate LLMs' linguistic knowledge of prominent grammatical phenomena in Quebec-French. QFrBLiMP comprises 1,761 minimal pairs annotated with 20 LPs. Specifically, these minimal pairs have been created by manually modifying sentences extracted from an official online resource maintained by a Québec government institution. Each pair is annotated by 12 Quebec-French native speakers, who select the sentence they consider grammatical from the two. These annotations are used to compare the competency of LLMs with that of humans. We evaluate different LLMs on QFrBLiMP and MultiBLiMP-Fr by observing the rate of higher probabilities assigned to the sentences of each minimal pair for each category. We find that while grammatical competence scales with model size, a clear hierarchy of difficulty emerges. All benchmarked models consistently fail on phenomena requiring deep semantic understanding, revealing a critical limitation. Finally, our statistical analysis comparing QFrBLiMP and MultiBLiMP reveals a significant performance degradation for most models on Quebec-French; however, the most capable models remain within the statistical significance interval, demonstrating cross-dialectal robustness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".