EVADE: LLM-Based Explanation Generation and Validation for Error Detection in NLI
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
High-quality datasets are critical for training and evaluating reliable NLP models. In tasks like natural language inference (NLI), human label variation (HLV) arises when multiple labels are valid for the same instance, making it difficult to separate annotation errors from plausible variation. An earlier framework, VARIERR (Weber-Genzel et al., 2024), asks multiple annotators to explain their label decisions in the first round and flags errors through validity judgments in the second round. However, conducting two rounds of manual annotation is costly and may limit the coverage of plausible labels or explanations. Our study proposes a new framework, EVADE, for generating and validating explanations to detect errors using large language models (LLMs). We perform a comprehensive analysis comparing human- and LLM-detected errors for NLI across distribution comparison, validation overlap, and impact on model fine-tuning. Our experiments demonstrate that LLM validation refines generated explanation distributions to more closely align with human annotations, and that removing LLM-detected errors from training data yields improvements in fine-tuning performance than removing errors identified by human annotators. This highlights the potential to scale error detection, reducing human effort while improving dataset quality under label variation.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Nov 2025.
Builds on
24 of 38 references.
References · 24
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2017A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inferencecited by 2,682
- 2015A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inferencecited by 1,847
- 2020Dataset Cartography: Mapping and Diagnosing Datasets with Training Dynamicscited by 425
- 2021Pervasive Label Errors in Test Sets Destabilize Machine Learning Benchmarkscited by 395
- 2019Abductive Commonsense Reasoningcited by 301
- 2020What Can We Learn from Collective Human Opinions on Natural Language Inference Data?cited by 153
- 2021Toward a Perspectivist Turn in Ground Truthing for Predictive Computingcited by 130
- 2023What Comes Next? Evaluating Uncertainty in Neural Text Generators Against Human Production Variabilitycited by 51
- 2024VariErr NLI: Separating Annotation Error from Human Label Variationcited by 42
- 2023Analyzing Dataset Annotation Quality Management in the Wildcited by 41
12 more
- 2019Outlier Detection for Improved Data Quality and Diversity in Dialog Systemscited by 28
- 2024Properties and Challenges of LLM-Generated Explanationscited by 24
- 2024"Seeing the Big through the Small": Can LLMs Approximate Human Judgment Distributions on NLI from a Few Explanations?cited by 17
- 2023AQuA: A Benchmarking Tool for Label Quality Assessmentcited by 16
- 2023Ecologically Valid Explanations for Label Variation in NLIcited by 16
- 2023ActiveAED: A Human in the Loop Improves Annotation Error Detectioncited by 9
- 2024A Rose by Any Other Name: LLM-Generated Explanations Are Good Proxies for Human Explanations to Collect Label Distributions on NLIcited by 9
- 2024Different Tastes of Entities: Investigating Human Label Variation in Named Entity Annotationscited by 5
- 2024Annotation Errors and NER: A Study with OntoNotes 5.0cited by 4
- 2025LiTEx: A Linguistic Taxonomy of Explanations for Understanding Within-Label Variation in Natural Language Inferencecited by 4
- 2025From Disagreement to Understanding: The Case for Ambiguity Detection in NLIcited by 4
- 2023Noise Correction on Subjective Datasetscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.