On our LLMgenerated Creating NLP datasets with Large Language Models NLI datasets, fine-tuned BERT classifiers (LLMs) is an attractive alternative to relying on achieve 86-96% accuracy when given only crowd-source workers (Ziems et al., 2024). Compared the hypotheses, compared to 72% performance on to crowd-source workers, LLMs are inexpensive, SNLI. We also find the LLM-generated datasets fast, and always available. Although LLMs contain similar gender stereotypes as SNLI. Our research require validation (Pangakis et al., 2023), they are suggests that while eliciting text from LLMs an efficient tool to annotate data (Zhao et al., 2022; to generate NLP datasets is enticing and promising, Bansal and Sharma, 2023; Gilardi et al., 2023; He thorough quality control is necessary.

We test whether replacing crowdsource workers with LLMs to write Natural Language Inference (NLI) hypotheses similarly results in annotation artifacts. We recreate a portion of the Stanford NLI corpus using GPT-4, Llama-2 and Mistral 7b, and train hypothesis-only classifiers to determine whether LLM-elicited hypotheses contain annotation artifacts. On our LLM-elicited NLI datasets, BERT-based hypothesis-only classifiers achieve between 86-96% accuracy, indicating these datasets contain hypothesis-only artifacts. We also find frequent "give-aways" in LLM-generated hypotheses, e.g. the phrase "swimming in a pool" appears in more than 10,000 contradictions generated by GPT-4. Our analysis provides empirical evidence that well-attested biases in NLI can persist in LLM-generated data.

Edge probing tests are classification tasks that test for grammatical knowledge encoded in token representations coming from contextual encoders such as large language models (LLMs). Many LLM encoders have shown high performance in EP tests, leading to conjectures about their ability to encode linguistic knowledge. However, a large body of research claims that the tests necessarily do not measure the LLM's capacity to encode knowledge, but rather reflect the classifiers' ability to learn the problem. Much of this criticism stems from the fact that often the classifiers have very similar accuracy when an LLM vs a random encoder is used. Consequently, several modifications to the tests have been suggested, including information theoretic probes. We show that commonly used edge probing test datasets have various biases including memorization. When these biases are removed, the LLM encoders do show a significant difference from the random ones, even with the simple non-information theoretic probes.

In this paper, we present InferES - an original corpus for Natural Language Inference (NLI) in European Spanish. We propose, implement, and analyze a variety of corpus-creating strategies utilizing expert linguists and crowd workers. The objectives behind InferES are to provide high-quality data, and, at the same time to facilitate the systematic evaluation of automated systems. Specifically, we focus on measuring and improving the performance of machine learning systems on negation-based adversarial examples and their ability to generalize across out-of-distribution topics. We train two transformer models on InferES (8,055 gold examples) in a variety of scenarios. Our best model obtains 72.8% accuracy, leaving a lot of room for improvement. The "hypothesis-only" baseline performs only 2%-5% higher than majority, indicating much fewer annotation artifacts than prior work. We find that models trained on InferES generalize very well across topics (both in- and out-of-distribution) and perform moderately well on negation-based adversarial examples.

The efficacy of machine learning (ML) models depends on both algorithms and data. Training data defines what we want our models to learn, and testing data provides the means by which their empirical progress is measured. Benchmark datasets define the entire world within which models exist and operate, yet research continues to focus on critiquing and improving the algorithmic aspect of the models rather than critiquing and improving the data with which our models operate. If "data is the new oil," we are still missing work on the refineries by which the data itself could be optimized for more effective use.

Large-scale datasets for natural language inference are created by presenting crowd workers with a sentence (premise), and asking them to generate three new sentences (hypotheses) that it entails, contradicts, or is logically neutral with respect to. We show that, in a significant portion of such data, this protocol leaves clues that make it possible to identify the label by looking only at the hypothesis, without observing the premise. Specifically, we show that a simple text categorization model can correctly classify the hypothesis alone in about 67% of SNLI (Bowman et al., 2015) and 53% of MultiNLI (Williams et al., 2018). Our analysis reveals that specific linguistic phenomena such as negation and vagueness are highly correlated with certain inference classes. Our findings suggest that the success of natural language inference models to date has been overestimated, and that the task remains a hard open problem.