mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Selection Shapes the Boundary: A Preregistered Replication of Monotonicity and Label Agreement in Unselected NLI Populations

arXiv 2607.19231 ↗First posted 21 Jul 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Prior work on human label variation (HLV) in natural language inference (NLI) has often relied on re-annotation resources that select items by disagreement level. An earlier study (arXiv:2607.15870) found that hypotheses containing non-upward monotonicity operators showed lower label agreement in ChaosNLI (Cliff's delta = -0.284), which is restricted to items whose majority label carries exactly three of five votes. We preregistered a replication of this boundary in the unselected populations that ChaosNLI was drawn from: the SNLI and MultiNLI development sets, using the same operator tagger and a four-level ordinal agreement outcome. The registered prediction fails. All seven contrasts return a positive Cliff's delta (non-upward items agree slightly more, not less), the only significant confirmatory contrast has the opposite sign to the registration, and every effect is far below our smallest effect size of interest (0.10). Robustness checks support the measurement: simulated tagger misclassification shrinks the effects rather than manufacturing them, and a manual re-tagging audit reaches four-class agreement of 0.875 on a fresh 200-item sample. We conclude that the earlier negative boundary is plausibly a structure conditional on low-agreement selection rather than a population-level property, and that HLV structure claims built on selected re-annotation resources should state their selection conditional explicitly.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Jul 2026.

Builds on

5 of 14 references.

References · 5

  1. 2017A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inferencecited by 2,665
  2. 2015A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inferencecited by 1,837
  3. 2020What Can We Learn from Collective Human Opinions on Natural Language Inference Data?cited by 148
  4. 2019Can neural networks understand monotonicity reasoning?cited by 45
  5. 2026How Much Human Label Variation Does Formal Semantic Structure Explain? Group-Level Effects and Item-Level Ceilings in NLIcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.