Datasets:
Tasks:
Multiple Choice
Modalities:
Text
Formats:
json
Sub-tasks:
multiple-choice-qa
Languages:
Dutch
Size:
< 1K
License:
|
Download README.md from Goomey/flembench: direct link, hf CLI and curl.
- Browser
- Download file 6.19 kB
-
https://huggingface.co/datasets/Goomey/flembench/resolve/main/README.md
- Command line
-
hf download hf://datasets/Goomey/flembench/README.md
-
curl -L -o README.md https://huggingface.co/datasets/Goomey/flembench/resolve/main/README.md
6.19 kB
| language: | |
| - nl | |
| license: cc-by-4.0 | |
| task_categories: | |
| - multiple-choice | |
| task_ids: | |
| - multiple-choice-qa | |
| pretty_name: flembench — Belgian vs Netherlands Dutch vocabulary | |
| size_categories: | |
| - n<1K | |
| tags: | |
| - dutch | |
| - flemish | |
| - belgian-dutch | |
| - language-varieties | |
| - evaluation | |
| configs: | |
| - config_name: default | |
| data_files: items.jsonl | |
| # flembench — Belgian Dutch vs Netherlands Dutch vocabulary | |
| 788 multiple-choice questions (394 matched pairs) that measure whether a language model knows | |
| Belgian-Dutch words as well as Netherlands-Dutch words **of the same difficulty for humans**. | |
| Companion repository, code and full results: | |
| [github.com/GillesVdSpiegel/flemish-llm-benchmark](https://github.com/GillesVdSpiegel/flemish-llm-benchmark). | |
| ## What makes this different | |
| Existing Dutch evaluations (EuroEval, DUMB, the Amsterdam government benchmark) do not distinguish | |
| the two varieties. The problem with any such comparison is confounding: if the Belgian questions | |
| are simply harder, a lower score proves nothing. | |
| Here, every Belgian word is **paired with a Netherlands word that is equally well known in its own | |
| country**, using word prevalence norms measured separately for Belgium and the Netherlands | |
| (Brysbaert et al. 2019). The mean difference within a pair is **0.6 percentage points**. A | |
| difference in model scores is therefore a property of the model, not of the word list. | |
| ## Example | |
| ```json | |
| { | |
| "id": "a1a-0437-be", | |
| "pair_id": "a1a-0437", | |
| "variety": "be", | |
| "marker": "velo", | |
| "prompt": "Wat betekent het woord \"velo\" zoals het in België gebruikt wordt?", | |
| "choices": ["fiets", "treuzelen", "hal, entree", "salarisschaal"], | |
| "gold": "A", | |
| "subcategory": "A1a-clean" | |
| } | |
| ``` | |
| The Netherlands member of the pair uses the identical template ("… zoals het in Nederland gebruikt | |
| wordt?"), and **the correct answer occupies the same position in both**, so a model's preference for | |
| a particular letter cannot produce a gap. | |
| ## Fields | |
| | Field | Meaning | | |
| |---|---| | |
| | `id`, `pair_id` | item id; both members of a pair share `pair_id` | | |
| | `variety` | `be` (Belgian Dutch) or `nl` (Netherlands Dutch) | | |
| | `marker` | the word being tested | | |
| | `prompt`, `choices`, `gold` | question, four options, correct letter | | |
| | `subcategory` | `A1a-clean` (602) or `A1a-overlap` (186, meaning resembles the word) | | |
| | `register` | `standard`, `tussentaal` or `unspecified` | | |
| | `drafted_by`, `reviewed_by`, `provenance` | where the correct answer came from | | |
| | `split` | always `public` here; 20% of pairs are held out privately | | |
| ## How to use | |
| ```python | |
| from datasets import load_dataset | |
| ds = load_dataset("Goomey/flembench", split="train") | |
| item = ds[0] | |
| prompt = item["prompt"] + "\n\n" + "\n".join( | |
| f"{letter}. {choice}" for letter, choice in zip("ABCD", item["choices"]) | |
| ) | |
| # ask your model for a single letter, compare with item["gold"] | |
| ``` | |
| Report accuracy per `variety`, and the **gap** as the mean over pairs of | |
| (Belgian correct − Netherlands correct). Use `subcategory == "A1a-clean"` for the headline figure. | |
| ## Baseline results (September 2026) | |
| | Model | Belgian | Netherlands | Gap | | |
| |---|---|---|---| | |
| | Gemini 3.8 Flash | 98.7% | 100.0% | −1.3 | | |
| | Claude Sonnet 5 | 96.8% | 98.4% | −1.6 | | |
| | GPT-5.6 Terra | 92.5% | 96.0% | −3.5 | | |
| | EuroLLM-9B | 88.2% | 89.8% | −1.6 | | |
| | GEITje-7B-ultra | 78.8% | 85.3% | −6.4 | | |
| | ChocoLlama-8B | 69.2% | 59.5% | +9.7 | | |
| | Gemma 4 12B | 63.3% | 63.0% | +0.3 | | |
| Computed on all 493 pairs (public plus held-out), clean subset, first run. Only ChocoLlama's gap | |
| survives Holm correction for seven models. ChocoLlama is the only model with Belgian training data | |
| and the only one that scores *better* on Belgian Dutch. | |
| ## How it was built | |
| 1. **Word selection** from the Dutch Crowdsourcing Project norms: words known by ≥80% in their own | |
| country and ≥30 points less in the other. 584 Belgian, 497 Netherlands candidates. | |
| 2. **Pairing**: one-to-one matching on own-country familiarity (±3 points) and on the | |
| between-country difference (±5 points). 493 pairs. | |
| 3. **Correct answers**: drafted independently by Claude Opus 5 and Gemini. 1,018 of 1,081 agreed; | |
| the 63 disagreements were decided by the author (a native Flemish speaker); 11 uncertain | |
| Netherlands words were decided by a Netherlands-Dutch speaker, who rejected 4. | |
| 4. **Distractors**: meanings of other words in the set, with no shared content words with the | |
| correct answer, no resemblance to the target word, and comparable length. | |
| Provenance of the correct answers in this public split: 762 drafted by Claude, 17 by Gemini, 4 | |
| written by the author, 5 by the Netherlands reviewer; 194 items carry an explicit human review. | |
| ## Limitations | |
| - **Isolated word meaning only.** No context sentences, no syntax, no administrative language, no | |
| institutional knowledge, no spoken language. | |
| - **Ceiling effect.** The strongest models score 97–100%, leaving little room to measure a | |
| difference; their gaps are lower bounds. | |
| - **Correct answers are partly LLM-drafted**, and one of the drafting models (Claude) is among the | |
| evaluated models. An advantage for Claude cannot be ruled out. Use `drafted_by` to check. | |
| - **No human baseline.** Model scores are not compared against native speakers answering the same | |
| questions. | |
| - **Noise floor.** Repeated runs give 93–99% identical answers, so differences under 1–2 points can | |
| be run-to-run variation. | |
| - **`A1a-overlap` items are easier**; exclude them for the headline. | |
| - **Single author** for the Belgian side; no second Flemish reviewer has checked a sample yet. | |
| ## Licence and citation | |
| CC BY 4.0. | |
| ```bibtex | |
| @misc{flembench2026, | |
| title = {flembench: a paired benchmark for Belgian vs Netherlands Dutch vocabulary in LLMs}, | |
| author = {Gilles (@GillesVdSpiegel)}, | |
| year = {2026}, | |
| url = {https://github.com/GillesVdSpiegel/flemish-llm-benchmark} | |
| } | |
| ``` | |
| Word selection derives from the prevalence norms of Brysbaert, Keuleers, Mandera & Stevens (2019), | |
| *Recognition Times for 54 Thousand Dutch Words*, Psychologica Belgica 59(1), licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. | |
| Those norms are **not redistributed** in this dataset; only words, questions and our own meanings | |
| are included. | |