Papers › MedNLI Is Not Immune: Natural Language Inference Artifacts in the Clinical Domain
MedNLI Is Not Immune: Natural Language Inference Artifacts in the Clinical Domain
Christine Herlihy, Rachel Rudinger
Crowdworker-constructed natural language inference (NLI) datasets have been found to contain statistical artifacts associated with the annotation process that allow hypothesis-only classifiers to achieve better-than-random performance (Poliak et al., 2018; Gururanganet et al., 2018; Tsuchiya, 2018). We investigate whether MedNLI, a physician-annotated dataset with premises extracted from clinical notes, contains such artifacts (Romanov and Shivade, 2018). We find that entailed hypotheses contain generic versions of specific concepts in the premise, as well as modifiers related to responsiveness, duration, and probability. Neutral hypotheses feature conditions and behaviors that co-occur with, or cause, the condition(s) in the premise. Contradiction hypotheses feature explicit negation of the premise and implicit negation via assertion of good health. Adversarial filtering demonstrates that performance degrades when evaluated on the difficult subset. We provide partition information and recommendations for alternative dataset construction strategies for knowledge-intensive domains.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections