Pith. sign in

REVIEW

No Strong Feelings One Way or Another: Re-operationalizing Neutrality in Natural Language Inference

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2306.09918 v1 pith:VKAQAFFX submitted 2023-06-16 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords languagenaturalannotatordatasetsevaluatinginferencemodelsneutrality
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Natural Language Inference (NLI) has been a cornerstone task in evaluating language models' inferential reasoning capabilities. However, the standard three-way classification scheme used in NLI has well-known shortcomings in evaluating models' ability to capture the nuances of natural human reasoning. In this paper, we argue that the operationalization of the neutral label in current NLI datasets has low validity, is interpreted inconsistently, and that at least one important sense of neutrality is often ignored. We uncover the detrimental impact of these shortcomings, which in some cases leads to annotation datasets that actually decrease performance on downstream tasks. We compare approaches of handling annotator disagreement and identify flaws in a recent NLI dataset that designs an annotator study based on a problematic operationalization. Our findings highlight the need for a more refined evaluation framework for NLI, and we hope to spark further discussion and action in the NLP community.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools