Cited by 3,342Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inference

Open access
Williams, Adina, Nangia, Nikita, Bowman, Samuel·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers)

Abstract

Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, Samuel Bowman. Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers). 2018.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/n18-1101

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • NLI measures have been used to measure faithfulness in summarization, where Maynez et al. (2020) use a textual entailment classifier trained on MNLI to determine if a summary contradicts a context or not.

    “NLI measures have been used to measure faithfulness in summarization, where Maynez et al. (2020) use a textual entailment classifier trained on MNLI (Williams et al., 2018) to determine if a summary contradicts a context or not.”
  • InferSent uses labeled data of the Stanford Natural Language Inference dataset and the MultiGenre NLI dataset to train a siamese BiLSTM network with max-pooling over the output.

    “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 Williams et al., 2018

  • Most prior entailment datasets have been human-authored, which is known to introduce artifacts, or collected in the wild, which is challenging to scale.

    “Most prior entailment datasets have been human-authored (Bowman et al., 2015;Williams et al., 2018), which is known to introduce artifacts (Gururangan et al., 2018), or collected in the wild (Kamoi et al., 2023), which is challenging to scale.”

    From MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documents (2024) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2018

  • This released mixture uses SNLI, MNLI, FEVER, SciTail, PAWS, and VitaminC rather than the original TRUE paper's ANLI recipe.

    “This released mixture uses SNLI, MNLI, FEVER, SciTail, PAWS, and VitaminC (Bowman et al., 2015;Williams et al., 2018;Thorne et al., 2018;Khot et al., 2018;Zhang et al., 2019;Schuster et al., 2021), rather than the original TRUE paper's ANLI recipe.”

    From The Attribution-Compression Frontier in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (2026) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Shai Ben-David, John Blitzer, Koby Crammer, and Fer- nando Pereira. 2007. Analysis of representations for domain adaptation. In Advances in neural informa- tion processing systems. pages 137-144.
  2. Johan Bos and Katja Markert. 2005. Recognising tex- tual entailment with logical inference. In Proceed- ings of the 2005 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). pages 628-635. http://www.aclweb.org/ anthology/H05-1079.
  3. Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large an- notated corpus for learning natural language in- ference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro- cessing. Association for Computational Linguis- tics, pages 632-642. https://doi.org/10. 18653/v1/D15-1075. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Samuel R. Bowman, Jon Gauthier, Abhinav Ras- togi, Raghav Gupta, Christopher D. Manning, and Christopher Potts. 2016. A fast unified model for parsing and sentence understanding. In Pro- ceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Lin- guistics, pages 1466-1477. https://doi.org/ 10.18653/v1/P16-1139. · DOI
  5. Qian Chen, Xiaodan Zhu, Zhen-Hua Ling, Si Wei, Hui Jiang, and Diana Inkpen. 2017. Enhanced LSTM for natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1657-1668. https://doi.org/10.18653/ v1/P17-1152. · DOI
  6. Cleo Condoravdi, Dick Crouch, Valeria de Paiva, Rein- hard Stolle, and Daniel G. Bobrow. 2003. Entail- ment, intensionality and text understanding. In Pro- ceedings of the Human Language Technology-North American Association for Computational Linguis- tics 2003 Workshop on Text Meaning.
  7. Alexis Conneau, Douwe Kiela, Holger Schwenk, Loic Barrault, and Antoine Bordes. 2017. Supervised learning of universal sentence representations from natural language inference data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.02364 . · arXiv
  8. Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2006. The PASCAL recognising textual entailment challenge. In Machine learning challenges. Evalu- ating predictive uncertainty, visual object classifica- tion, and recognising textual entailment, Springer, pages 177-190.
  9. Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Anna N. Rafferty, and Christopher D. Manning. 2008. Finding contradic- tions in text. In Proceedings of Association for Com- putational Linguistics-08: Human Language Tech- nology. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1039-1047. http://www.aclweb.org/ anthology/P08-1118.
  10. Charles Fillmore, Nancy Ide, Daniel Jurafsky, and Catherine Macleod. 1998. An American National Corpus: A proposal. In Proceedings of the First An- nual Conference on Language Resources and Eval- uation. pages 965-969.
  11. Yaroslav Fyodorov, Yoad Winter, and Nissim Francez. 2000. A natural logic inference system. In Proceed- ings of the 2nd Workshop on Inference in Computa- tional Semantics.
  12. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation 9(8):1735-1780.
  13. Nancy Ide and Catherine Macleod. 2001. The Amer- ican National Corpus: A standardized resource of American English. In Proceedings of Corpus Lin- guistics. Lancaster University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language, volume 3, pages 1- 7.
  14. Nancy Ide and Keith Suderman. 2006. Integrating linguistic resources: The national corpus model. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Con- ference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC). European Language Resources Associ- ation (ELRA). http://www.aclweb.org/ anthology/L06-1138.
  15. Diederik Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2015. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations (ICLR).
  16. Dan Klein and Christopher D. Manning. 2003. Accu- rate unlexicalized parsing. In Proc. ACL. https: //doi.org/10.3115/1075096.1075150. · DOI
  17. Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hin- ton. 2012. Imagenet classification with deep convo- lutional neural networks. In Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems 25, pages 1097-1105.
  18. Bill MacCartney and Christopher D Manning. 2009. An extended model of natural logic. In Proceed- ings of the of the Eighth International Conference on Computational Semantics. pages 140-156.
  19. Catherine Macleod, Nancy Ide, and Ralph Grishman. 2000. The American National Corpus: A standard- ized resource for American English. In Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC).
  20. Mitchell P Marcus, Mary Ann Marcinkiewicz, and Beatrice Santorini. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn treebank. Computa- tional linguistics 19(2):313-330.
  21. Marco Marelli, Luisa Bentivogli, Marco Baroni, Raf- faella Bernardi, Stefano Menini, and Roberto Zam- parelli. 2014a. Evaluation of compositional distri- butional semantic models on full sentences through semantic relatedness and textual entailment. In Pro- ceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Se- mantic Evaluation (SemEval 2014). Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1-8. https: //doi.org/10.3115/v1/S14-2001. · DOI
  22. Marco Marelli, Stefano Menini, Marco Baroni, Luisa Bentivogli, Raffaella Bernardi, and Roberto Zam- parelli. 2014b. A SICK cure for the evaluation of compositional distributional semantic models. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC).
  23. Lili Mou, Zhao Meng, Rui Yan, Ge Li, Yan Xu, Lu Zhang, and Zhi Jin. 2016a. How transfer- able are neural networks in NLP applications? In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Em- pirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Association for Computational Linguis- tics, pages 479-489. https://doi.org/10. 18653/v1/D16-1046. · DOI
  24. Lili Mou, Men Rui, Ge Li, Yan Xu, Lu Zhang, Rui Yan, and Zhi Jin. 2016b. Natural language inference by tree-based convolution and heuristic matching. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers). Association for Computational Lin- guistics, pages 130-136. https://doi.org/ 10.18653/v1/P16-2022. · DOI
  25. Tsendsuren Munkhdalai and Hong Yu. 2017. Neu- ral semantic encoders. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 397-407. http://www.aclweb.org/ anthology/E17-1038.
  26. Nikita Nangia, Adina Williams, Angeliki Lazaridou, and Samuel R Bowman. 2017. The repeval 2017 shared task: Multi-genre natural language inference with sentence representations. In Proceedings of RepEval 2017: The Second Workshop on Evaluat- ing Vector Space Representations for NLP.
  27. Ankur Parikh, Oscar Täckström, Dipanjan Das, and Jakob Uszkoreit. 2016. A decomposable atten- tion model for natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics, pages 2249- 2255. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/ D16-1244. · DOI
  28. Nanyun Peng and Mark Dredze. 2017. Multi-task do- main adaptation for sequence tagging. In Proceed- ings of the 2nd Workshop on Representation Learn- ing for NLP. pages 91-100.
  29. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christo- pher D. Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing (EMNLP). Association for Com- putational Linguistics, pages 1532-1543. https: //doi.org/10.3115/v1/D14-1162. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Philippe Schlenker. 2016. The Cambridge Hand- book of Formal Semantics, Cambridge Univer- sity Press, chapter The Semantics/Pragmatics Inter- face, pages 664-727. https://doi.org/10. 1017/CBO9781139236157.023. · DOI
  31. Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2014. Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. Journal of Machine Learning Re- search (JMLR) 15:1929-1958.
  32. Robert Stalnaker. 1974. Semantics and Philosophy, New York University Press, chapter Pragmatic Pre- supposition, pages 329-355.
  33. Anna Szabolcsi. 2010. Quantification. Cambridge University Press.
  34. Shuohang Wang and Jing Jiang. 2016. Learning natural language inference with LSTM. In Pro- ceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1442-1451. https://doi.org/10.18653/ v1/N16-1170. · DOI
  35. Peter Young, Alice Lai, Micah Hodosh, and Julia Hockenmaier. 2014. From image descriptions to visual denotations: New similarity metrics for se- mantic inference over event descriptions. Trans- actions of the Association of Computational Lin- guistics 2:67-78. http://www.aclweb.org/ anthology/Q14-1006.
  36. Matthew D. Zeiler and Rob Fergus. 2014. Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks. In Pro- ceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV). pages 818-833.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Williams, A., Nangia, N., & Bowman, S.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers)
Published
2018
Pages
1112-1122
OpenAlex
W2607892599
Cited by
3,342
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 94 · 2025: 205 · 2024: 248 · 2023: 651 · 2022: 542 · 2021: 710 · 2020: 471 · 2019: 282 · 2018: 118 · 2017: 21
FWCI
161.45
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Tencent
  • Samsung
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
sentence comprehension, inference, natural language understanding, commonsense reasoning, question answering

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