NLI Data Sanity Check: Assessing the Effect of Data Corruption on Model Performance
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Pre-trained neural language models give high performance on natural language inference (NLI) tasks. But whether they actually understand the meaning of the processed sequences remains unclear. We propose a new diagnostics test suite which allows to assess whether a dataset constitutes a good testbed for evaluating the models' meaning understanding capabilities. We specifically apply controlled corruption transformations to widely used benchmarks (MNLI and ANLI), which involve removing entire word classes and often lead to non-sensical sentence pairs. If model accuracy on the corrupted data remains high, then the dataset is likely to contain statistical biases and artefacts that guide prediction. Inversely, a large decrease in model accuracy indicates that the original dataset provides a proper challenge to the models' reasoning capabilities. Hence, our proposed controls can serve as a crash test for developing high quality data for NLI tasks.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Apr 2021.
Builds on
15 of 19 references.
References · 15
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
- 2017A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inferencecited by 2,665
- 2015A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inferencecited by 1,837
- 2019SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systemscited by 1,718
- 2019Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understandingcited by 798
- 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 656
- 2019Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Taskscited by 608
- 2018Hypothesis Only Baselines in Natural Language Inferencecited by 291
- 2018Breaking NLI Systems with Sentences that Require Simple Lexical Inferencescited by 134
- 2020Out of Order: How Important Is The Sequential Order of Words in a Sentence in Natural Language Understanding Tasks?cited by 72
3 more
- 2020Towards Robustifying NLI Models Against Lexical Dataset Biasescited by 34
- 2018Testing the Generalization Power of Neural Network Models Across NLI Benchmarkscited by 15
- 2018What If We Simply Swap the Two Text Fragments? A Straightforward yet Effective Way to Test the Robustness of Methods to Confounding Signals in Nature Language Inference Taskscited by 14
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 1; 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
4 papers.
- 2021Measuring Context-Word Biases in Lexical Semantic Datasetscited by 1
- 2022How Does Data Corruption Affect Natural Language Understanding Models? A Study on GLUE datasetscited by 0
- 2023Keeping Up with the Language Models: Systematic Benchmark Extension for Bias Auditingcited by 0
- 2026LLM and Human Modes of Representationcited by 0
- 2026LLM and Human Modes of Representation19 Jun 2026
- 2023Keeping Up with the Language Models: Systematic Benchmark Extension for Bias Auditing22 May 2023
- 2022How Does Data Corruption Affect Natural Language Understanding Models? A Study on GLUE datasets12 Jan 2022
- 2021Measuring Context-Word Biases in Lexical Semantic Datasets13 Dec 2021