We present Irish-BLiMP (Irish Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs), the first dataset and framework designed for fine-grained evaluation of linguistic competence in the Irish language, an endangered language. Drawing on a variety of linguistic literature and grammar reference works, we manually constructed and reviewed 1020 minimal pairs across a taxonomy of 11 linguistic features, through a team of fluent Irish speakers. We evaluate both existing Large Language Models (LLMs) and fluent human participants on their syntactic knowledge of Irish. Our findings show that humans outperform all models across all linguistic features, achieving 16.6% higher accuracy on average. Moreover, a substantial performance gap of 18.1% persists between open- and closed-source LLMs, with even the strongest model (gpt-5) reaching only 73.5% accuracy compared to 90.1% by human. Interestingly, human participants and models struggle on different aspects of Irish grammar, thus highlighting a difference in representation learned by the models. Overall, Irish-BLiMP provides the first systematic framework for evaluating the grammatical competence of LLMs in Irish and offers a valuable benchmark for advancing research on linguistic understanding in low-resource languages.

Large and Transformer-based language models perform outstandingly in various downstream tasks. However, there is limited understanding regarding how these models internalize linguistic knowledge, so various linguistic benchmarks have recently been proposed to facilitate syntactic evaluation of language models across languages. This paper introduces QFrCoLA (Quebec-French Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability Judgments), a normative binary acceptability judgments dataset comprising 25,153 in-domain and 2,675 out-of-domain sentences. Our study leverages the QFrCoLA dataset and seven other linguistic binary acceptability judgment corpora to benchmark seven language models. The results demonstrate that, on average, fine-tuned Transformer-based LM are strong baselines for most languages and that zero-shot binary classification large language models perform poorly on the task. However, for the QFrCoLA benchmark, on average, a fine-tuned Transformer-based LM outperformed other methods tested. It also shows that pre-trained cross-lingual LLMs selected for our experimentation do not seem to have acquired linguistic judgment capabilities during their pre-training for Quebec French. Finally, our experiment results on QFrCoLA show that our dataset, built from examples that illustrate linguistic norms rather than speakers' feelings, is similar to linguistic acceptability judgment; it is a challenging dataset that can benchmark LM on their linguistic judgment capabilities.

Multilingual Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance across various languages; however, they often include significantly less data for low-resource languages such as Urdu compared to high-resource languages like English. To assess the linguistic knowledge of LLMs in Urdu, we present the Urdu Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs (UrBLiMP) i.e. pairs of minimally different sentences that contrast in grammatical acceptability. UrBLiMP comprises 5,696 minimal pairs targeting ten core syntactic phenomena, carefully curated using the Urdu Treebank and diverse Urdu text corpora. A human evaluation of UrBLiMP annotations yielded a 96.10% inter-annotator agreement, confirming the reliability of the dataset. We evaluate twenty multilingual LLMs on UrBLiMP, revealing significant variation in performance across linguistic phenomena. While LLaMA-3-70B achieves the highest average accuracy (94.73%), its performance is statistically comparable to other top models such as Gemma-3-27B-PT. These findings highlight both the potential and the limitations of current multilingual LLMs in capturing fine-grained syntactic knowledge in low-resource languages.

Natural Language Understanding (NLU) is a basic task in Natural Language Processing (NLP). The evaluation of NLU capabilities has become a trending research topic that attracts researchers in the last few years, resulting in the development of numerous benchmarks. These benchmarks include various tasks and datasets in order to evaluate the results of pretrained models via public leaderboards. Notably, several benchmarks contain diagnostics datasets designed for investigation and fine-grained error analysis across a wide range of linguistic phenomena. This survey provides a comprehensive review of available English, Arabic, and Multilingual NLU benchmarks, with a particular emphasis on their diagnostics datasets and the linguistic phenomena they covered. We present a detailed comparison and analysis of these benchmarks, highlighting their strengths and limitations in evaluating NLU tasks and providing in-depth error analysis. When highlighting the gaps in the state-of-the-art, we noted that there is no naming convention for macro and micro categories or even a standard set of linguistic phenomena that should be covered. Consequently, we formulated a research question regarding the evaluation metrics of the evaluation diagnostics benchmarks: "Why do not we have an evaluation standard for the NLU evaluation diagnostics benchmarks?" similar to ISO standard in industry. We conducted a deep analysis and comparisons of the covered linguistic phenomena in order to support experts in building a global hierarchy for linguistic phenomena in future. We think that having evaluation metrics for diagnostics evaluation could be valuable to gain more insights when comparing the results of the studied models on different diagnostics benchmarks.

We introduce KoBALT (Korean Benchmark for Advanced Linguistic Tasks), a comprehensive linguistically-motivated benchmark comprising 700 multiple-choice questions spanning 24 phenomena across five linguistic domains: syntax, semantics, pragmatics, phonetics/phonology, and morphology. KoBALT is designed to advance the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) in Korean, a morphologically rich language, by addressing the limitations of conventional benchmarks that often lack linguistic depth and typological grounding. It introduces a suite of expert-curated, linguistically motivated questions with minimal n-gram overlap with standard Korean corpora, substantially mitigating the risk of data contamination and allowing a more robust assessment of true language understanding. Our evaluation of 20 contemporary LLMs reveals significant performance disparities, with the highest-performing model achieving 61\% general accuracy but showing substantial variation across linguistic domains - from stronger performance in semantics (66\%) to considerable weaknesses in phonology (31\%) and morphology (36\%). Through human preference evaluation with 95 annotators, we demonstrate a strong correlation between KoBALT scores and human judgments, validating our benchmark's effectiveness as a discriminative measure of Korean language understanding. KoBALT addresses critical gaps in linguistic evaluation for typologically diverse languages and provides a robust framework for assessing genuine linguistic competence in Korean language models.

Large language models (LLMs) excel in tasks that require complex linguistic abilities, such as reference disambiguation and metaphor recognition/generation. Although LLMs possess impressive capabilities, their internal mechanisms for processing and representing linguistic knowledge remain largely opaque. Previous work on linguistic mechanisms has been limited by coarse granularity, insufficient causal analysis, and a narrow focus. In this study, we present a systematic and comprehensive causal investigation using sparse auto-encoders (SAEs). We extract a wide range of linguistic features from six dimensions: phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. We extract, evaluate, and intervene on these features by constructing minimal contrast datasets and counterfactual sentence datasets. We introduce two indices-Feature Representation Confidence (FRC) and Feature Intervention Confidence (FIC)-to measure the ability of linguistic features to capture and control linguistic phenomena. Our results reveal inherent representations of linguistic knowledge in LLMs and demonstrate the potential for controlling model outputs. This work provides strong evidence that LLMs possess genuine linguistic knowledge and lays the foundation for more interpretable and controllable language modeling in future research.

Despite the remarkable advancements and widespread applications of deep neural networks, their ability to perform reasoning tasks remains limited, particularly in domains requiring structured, abstract thought. In this paper, we investigate the linguistic reasoning capabilities of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) by introducing IOLBENCH, a novel benchmark derived from International Linguistics Olympiad (IOL) problems. This dataset encompasses diverse problems testing syntax, morphology, phonology, and semantics, all carefully designed to be self-contained and independent of external knowledge. These tasks challenge models to engage in metacognitive linguistic reasoning, requiring the deduction of linguistic rules and patterns from minimal examples. Through extensive benchmarking of leading LLMs, we find that even the most advanced models struggle to handle the intricacies of linguistic complexity, particularly in areas demanding compositional generalization and rule abstraction. Our analysis highlights both the strengths and persistent limitations of current models in linguistic problem-solving, offering valuable insights into their reasoning capabilities. By introducing IOLBENCH, we aim to foster further research into developing models capable of human-like reasoning, with broader implications for the fields of computational linguistics and artificial intelligence.

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.

What kinds of and how much data is necessary for language models to induce grammatical knowledge to judge sentence acceptability? Recent language models still have much room for improvement in their data efficiency compared to humans. This paper investigates whether language models efficiently use indirect data (indirect evidence), from which they infer sentence acceptability. In contrast, humans use indirect evidence efficiently, which is considered one of the inductive biases contributing to efficient language acquisition. To explore this question, we introduce the Wug InDirect Evidence Test (WIDET), a dataset consisting of training instances inserted into the pre-training data and evaluation instances. We inject synthetic instances with newly coined wug words into pretraining data and explore the model's behavior on evaluation data that assesses grammatical acceptability regarding those words. We prepare the injected instances by varying their levels of indirectness and quantity. Our experiments surprisingly show that language models do not induce grammatical knowledge even after repeated exposure to instances with the same structure but differing only in lexical items from evaluation instances in certain language phenomena. Our findings suggest a potential direction for future research: developing models that use latent indirect evidence to induce grammatical knowledge.

We introduce a novel analysis that leverages linguistic minimal pairs to probe the internal linguistic representations of Large Language Models (LLMs). By measuring the similarity between LLM activation differences across minimal pairs, we quantify the and gain insight into the linguistic knowledge captured by LLMs. Our large-scale experiments, spanning 100+ LLMs and 150k minimal pairs in three languages, reveal properties of linguistic similarity from four key aspects: consistency across LLMs, relation to theoretical categorizations, dependency to semantic context, and cross-lingual alignment of relevant phenomena. Our findings suggest that 1) linguistic similarity is significantly influenced by training data exposure, leading to higher cross-LLM agreement in higher-resource languages. 2) Linguistic similarity strongly aligns with fine-grained theoretical linguistic categories but weakly with broader ones. 3) Linguistic similarity shows a weak correlation with semantic similarity, showing its context-dependent nature. 4) LLMs exhibit limited cross-lingual alignment in their understanding of relevant linguistic phenomena. This work demonstrates the potential of minimal pairs as a window into the neural representations of language in LLMs, shedding light on the relationship between LLMs and linguistic theory.