Papers › NLI Data Sanity Check: Assessing the Effect of Data Corruption on Model Performance

NLI Data Sanity Check: Assessing the Effect of Data Corruption on Model Performance

10 Apr 2021NoDaLiDa 2021 5arXiv:2104.04751archive 2025-07-28

Aarne Talman, Marianna Apidianaki, Stergios Chatzikyriakidis, Jörg Tiedemann

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.

PaperPDFConference PDFCode

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

Helsinki-NLP/nli-data-sanity-check officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHub report

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

Natural Language InferenceSentence

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