 Our procedure centers around the methodical creation of logically-equivalent, but syntactically-different sets of probes, of which we create a corpus of 14,400 probes coming from 60 logically-equivalent sets that can be used to probe PTLMs in three task settings. We find that despite the recent success of large PTLMs on commonsense benchmarks, their performances on our probes are no better than random guessing (even with fine-tuning) and are heavily dependent on biases--the poor overall performance, unfortunately, inhibits us from studying robustness.
<clarity>  Our procedure centers around the methodical creation of logically-equivalent, but syntactically-different sets of probes, of which we create a corpus of 14,400 probes coming from 60 logically-equivalent sets that can be used to probe PTLMs in three task settings. We find that despite the recent success of large PTLMs on commonsense benchmarks, their performances on our probes are no better than random guessing (even with fine-tuning) and are heavily dependent on biases--the poor overall performance, unfortunately, inhibits us from studying robustness.
 Our procedure centers around the methodical creation of logically-equivalent, but syntactically-different sets of probes, of which we create a corpus of 14,400 probes coming from 60 logically-equivalent sets that can be used to probe PTLMs across three different evaluation settings. Extensive experiments on our generated probe sets show that PTLMs perform no better than random guessing (even with fine-tuning) and are heavily dependent on biases--the poor overall performance, unfortunately, inhibits us from studying robustness.