Minimal pairs are a well-established approach to evaluating the grammatical knowledge of language models. However, existing resources for minimal pairs address a limited number of languages and lack diversity of language-specific grammatical phenomena. This paper introduces the Russian Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs (RuBLiMP), which includes 45k pairs of sentences that differ in grammaticality and isolate a morphological, syntactic, or semantic phenomenon. In contrast to existing benchmarks of linguistic minimal pairs, RuBLiMP is created by applying linguistic perturbations to automatically annotated sentences from open text corpora and decontaminating test data. We describe the data collection protocol and present the results of evaluating 25 language models in various scenarios. We find that the widely used LMs for Russian are sensitive to morphological and agreement-oriented contrasts, but fall behind humans on phenomena requiring the understanding of structural relations, negation, transitivity, and tense. RuBLiMP, the codebase, and other materials are publicly available.

Interpretability studies have played an important role in the field of NLP. They focus on the problems of how models encode information or, for instance, whether linguistic capabilities allow them to prefer grammatical sentences to ungrammatical. Recently, several studies examined whether the models demonstrate patterns similar to humans and whether they are sensitive to the phenomena of interference like humans’ grammaticality judgements, including the phenomenon of agreement attraction.In this paper, we probe BERT and GPT models on the syntactic phenomenon of agreement attraction in Russian using the psycholinguistic data with syncretism. Working on the language with syncretism between some plural and singular forms allows us to differentiate between the effects of the surface form and of the underlying grammatical feature. Thus we can further investigate models’ sensitivity to this phenomenon and examine if the patterns of their behaviour are similar to human patterns. Moreover, we suggest a new way of comparing models’ and humans’ responses via statistical testing. We show that there are some similarities between models’ and humans’ results, while GPT is somewhat more aligned with human responses than BERT. Finally, preliminary results suggest that surface form syncretism influences attraction, perhaps more so than grammatical form syncretism.