The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference
Open accessAbstract
Understanding entailment and contradiction is fundamental to understanding natural language, and inference about entailment and contradiction is a valuable testing ground for the development of semantic representations.However, machine learning research in this area has been dramatically limited by the lack of large-scale resources.To address this, we introduce the Stanford Natural Language Inference corpus, a new, freely available collection of labeled sentence pairs, written by humans doing a novel grounded task based on image captioning.At 570K pairs, it is two orders of magnitude larger than all other resources of its type.This increase in scale allows lexicalized classifiers to outperform some sophisticated existing entailment models, and it allows a neural network-based model to perform competitively on natural language inference benchmarks for the first time.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This level of expert disagreement is in line with what is observed in other well-known machine learning benchmarks59–62.”
From Humanity's Last Exam (2025) · cites this paper as [62]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“InferSent (Conneau et al., 2017) uses labeled data of the Stanford Natural Language Inference dataset (Bowman et al., 2015) and the MultiGenre NLI dataset (Williams et al., 2018) to train a siamese BiLSTM network with max-pooling over the output.”
From Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks (2019) · cites this paper as Bowman et al., 2015
In the citing paper
“For natural language inference (NLI) tasks, on most datasets, such as on RTE [116] and SNLI [16], fine-tuned models perform better than LLMs, while on some data such as CB [115], LLMs have obtained comparable performance with fine-tuned models [25].”
From Harnessing the power of llms in practice: a survey on chatGPT and beyond (2024) · cites this paper as [16]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 · Cited by 102,318
Glove: Global Vectors for Word Representation
Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1162 · Cited by 34,071
Self-citation(2014) · Cited by 33,419
WordNet: a lexical database for English
Miller, G. A. (1995) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/219717.219748 · Cited by 14,015
Recursive Deep Models for Semantic Compositionality Over a Sentiment Treebank
Socher, R., Perelygin, A., Wu, J., Chuang, J., Manning, C. D., Ng, A., & Potts, C. (2013) · Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d13-1170 · Cited by 6,878
Self-citationADADELTA: An Adaptive Learning Rate Method
Zeiler, M. D. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1212.5701 · Cited by 5,322
Accurate unlexicalized parsing
Klein, D., & Manning, C. D. (2003) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.3115/1075096.1075150 · Cited by 3,055
Self-citationUnderstanding natural language
Winograd, T. A. (1972) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90002-3 · Cited by 2,803
Young, P., Lai, A., Hodosh, M., & Hockenmaier, J. (2014) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00166 · Cited by 2,439
The PASCAL Recognising Textual Entailment Challenge
Dagan, I., Glickman, O., & Magnini, B. (2006) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11736790_9 · Cited by 1,674
Baselines and Bigrams: Simple, Good Sentiment and Topic Classification
Wang, S., & Manning, C. D. (2012) · Cited by 957
Self-citationA SICK cure for the evaluation of compositional distributional semantic models
Marelli, M., Menini, S., Baroni, M., Bentivogli, L., Bernardi, R., & Zamparelli, R. (2014) · Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC) · doi:10.63317/39qdhuevzbqa · Cited by 693
Towards AI-Complete Question Answering: A Set of Prerequisite Toy Tasks
Weston, J., Bordes, A., Chopra, S., Rush, A. M., van Merriënboer, B., Joulin, A., & Mikolov, T. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1502.05698 · Cited by 670
VerbOcean: Mining the Web for Fine-Grained Semantic Verb Relations
Chklovski, T. A., & Pantel, P. (2004) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · Cited by 391
Marelli, M., Bentivogli, L., Baroni, M., Raffaella Bernardi, B., Menini, S., & Zamparelli, R. (2014) · International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval) · doi:10.3115/v1/s14-2001 · Cited by 378
Pavlick, E., Rastogi, P., Ganitkevitch, J., Durme, B. V., & Callison-Burch, C. (2015) · doi:10.3115/v1/p15-2070 · Cited by 262
Recognising textual entailment with logical inference
Bos, J., & Markert, K. (2005) · doi:10.3115/1220575.1220654 · Cited by 231
Finding Contradictions in Text
de Marneffe, M.-C., Rafferty, A. N., & Manning, C. D. (2008) · Cited by 227
Self-citationAn extended model of natural logic
MacCartney, B., & Manning, C. D. (2009) · International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS) · doi:10.3115/1693756.1693772 · Cited by 189
Self-citationDirect transfer of learned information among neural networks
Pratt, L., Mostow, J., & Kamm, C. (1991) · Cited by 148
Illinois-LH: A Denotational and Distributional Approach to Semantics
Lai, A., & Hockenmaier, J. (2014) · International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval) · doi:10.3115/v1/s14-2055 · Cited by 134
Recursive Neural Networks Can Learn Logical Semantics
Bowman, S. R., Potts, C., & Manning, C. D. (2015) · doi:10.18653/v1/w15-4002 · Cited by 117
Self-citationLevesque, H. J. (2014) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2014.03.007 · Cited by 105
Entailment, intensionality and text understanding
Condoravdi, C. A., Crouch, D., de Paiva, V., Stolle, R., & Bobrow, D. G. (2003) · doi:10.3115/1119239.1119245 · Cited by 99
Information Structure and Non‐canonical Syntax
Ward, G., & Birner, B. J. (2006) · doi:10.1002/9780470756959.ch7 · Cited by 68
A brief history of natural logic
van Benthem, J. (2008) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · Cited by 67
Recognizing textual entailment using sentence similarity based on dependency tree skeletons
Wang, R., & Neumann, G. (2007) · doi:10.3115/1654536.1654546 · Cited by 60
The Excitement Open Platform for Textual Inferences
Magnini, B., Zanoli, R., Dagan, I., Eichler, K., Neumann, G., Noh, T.-G., Padó, S., Stern, A., & Levy, O. (2014) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations (ACL Demo) · doi:10.3115/v1/p14-5008 · Cited by 56
Focused Entailment Graphs for Open IE Propositions
Levy, O., Dagan, I., & Goldberger, J. (2014) · Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning · doi:10.3115/v1/w14-1610 · Cited by 42
Design and realization of a modular architecture for textual entailment
Padó, S., Noh, T.-G., Stern, A., Wang, R., & Zanoli, R. (2013) · Natural Language Engineering · doi:10.1017/s1351324913000351 · Cited by 36
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Anna N. Rafferty, and Christopher D. Manning. 2008. Finding contradic- tions in text. In Proc. ACL.
- Yaroslav Fyodorov, Yoad Winter, and Nissim Francez. 2000. A natural logic inference system. In Proc. of the 2nd Workshop on Inference in Computational Semantics.
- Danilo Giampiccolo, Bernardo Magnini, Ido Dagan, and Bill Dolan. 2007. The third PASCAL recog- nizing textual entailment challenge. In Proc. of the ACL-PASCAL workshop on textual entailment and paraphrasing.
- Dan Klein and Christopher D. Manning. 2003. Accu- rate unlexicalized parsing. In Proc. ACL.
- Jason Weston, Sumit Chopra, and Antoine Bordes. 2015b. Memory networks. In Proc. ICLR.
- Terry Winograd. 1972. Understanding natural lan- guage. Cognitive Psychology, 3(1):1-191.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 · Cited by 73,173
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 54,325
RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach
Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Stoyanov, V. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.11692 · Cited by 16,515
Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks
Reimers, N., & Gurevych, I. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1410 · Cited by 12,778
Unsupervised Cross-lingual Representation Learning at Scale
Conneau, A., Khandelwal, K., Goyal, N., Chaudhary, V., Wenzek, G., Guzmán, F., Grave, E., Ott, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Stoyanov, V. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.747 · Cited by 5,637
Metadata
- Authors
- Bowman, S. R., Angeli, G., Potts, C., & Manning, C. D.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
- Published
- 2015
- Pages
- 632-642
- OpenAlex
- W1840435438
- Cited by
- 3,377
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 89 · 2025: 172 · 2024: 219 · 2023: 564 · 2022: 488 · 2021: 596 · 2020: 499 · 2019: 390 · 2018: 227 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 67.61
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1159679)
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750)
- Advanced Research Projects Agency
- U.S. Navy
- Office of Naval Research (N00014)
- Air Force Research Laboratory
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Keywords
- natural language inference, logical consequence, contradiction, annotated corpus, sentence pairs, image captioning, neural network model, semantic representation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
