Cited by 897Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?

Open access
Zellers, Rowan, Holtzman, Ari, Bisk, Yonatan, Farhadi, Ali, Choi, Yejin·2019·Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Abstract

Recent work by Zellers et al. (2018) introduced a new task of commonsense natural language inference: given an event description such as "A woman sits at a piano," a machine must select the most likely followup: "She sets her fingers on the keys."With the introduction of BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), near human-level performance was reached.Does this mean that machines can perform human level commonsense inference?In this paper, we show that commonsense inference still proves di cult for even stateof-the-art models, by presenting HellaSwag, a new challenge dataset.Though its questions are trivial for humans (°95% accuracy), state-of-the-art models struggle ( †48%).We achieve this via Adversarial Filtering (AF), a data collection paradigm wherein a series of discriminators iteratively select an adversarial set of machine-generated wrong answers.AF proves to be surprisingly robust.The key insight is to scale up the length and complexity of the dataset examples towards a critical 'Goldilocks' zone wherein generated text is ridiculous to humans, yet often misclassified by state-of-the-art models.Our construction of HellaSwag, and its resulting di culty, sheds light on the inner workings of deep pretrained models.More broadly, it suggests a new path forward for NLP research, in which benchmarks co-evolve with the evolving state-of-the-art in an adversarial way, so as to present ever-harder challenges.

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/p19-1472

Cites

20 of 20 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?

  • There is no 'ground-truth' implementation from the original benchmark authors for many popular benchmarks that have been retrofitted for compatibility with autoregressive LMs.

    “There is no 'ground-truth' implementation from the original benchmark authors, and many popular benchmarks (Paperno et al., 2016; Clark et al., 2018; Zellers et al., 2019) that have been 'retrofitted' for compatibility with autoregressive LMs.”

    From Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Zellers et al., 2019

    The Conclusion identifies HellaSwag as a benchmark, supporting its use as an example. But Section 5 reports an OpenAI GPT baseline evaluated by the original authors; the paper does not establish that HellaSwag lacked a ground-truth implementation or was later retrofitted for autoregressive LMs. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Benchmarks are often adversarially selected for tasks that current models struggle with compared to humans, biasing the comparison to human performance.

    “Second, benchmarks are often adversarially selected for tasks that current models struggle with compared to humans, 1 biasing the comparison to human performance.”

    From Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks (2025) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Results section reports that HellaSwag was made adversarial for BERT and that humans scored over 95% while every evaluated model scored below 50%. Section 6.3 proposes making future datasets adversarial to current models. These passages support HellaSwag as an example, but not the broader claim that benchmarks are often selected this way or that this practice biases comparisons with human performance. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • During RLHF fine-tuning, performance regressions compared to GPT-3 are observed on certain public NLP datasets, notably SQuAD, DROP, HellaSwag, and WMT 2015 French to English translation.

    “During RLHF fine-tuning, we observe performance regressions compared to GPT-3 on certain public NLP datasets, notably SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2018), DROP (Dua et al., 2019), HellaSwag (Zellers et al., 2019), and WMT 2015 French to English translation (Bojar et al., 2015).”

    From Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Zellers et al., 2019

  • Traditional language model benchmarks primarily assess LLMs on tasks such as commonsense reasoning and standardized exams using multiple-choice questions.

    “Traditional language model benchmarks, such as HellaSwag (Zellers et al., 2019), WinoGrande (Sakaguchi et al., 2021), MMLU (Hendrycks et al., 2021), GSM-8K (Cobbe et al., 2021), and BIG-Bench (Srivastava et al., 2023), primarily assess LLMs on tasks like commonsense reasoning and standardized exams.”
  • The downstream tasks LAMBADA, HellaSwag, PIQA, ARC-challenge, ARC-easy, and WinoGrande measure common sense reasoning.

    “for evaluating the following tasks that measure common sense reasoning: LAMBADA (OpenAI version in LM Evaluation Harness) (Paperno et al., 2016), HellaSwag (Zellers et al., 2019), PIQA (Bisk et al., 2020), ARC-challenge, ARC-easy (Clark et al., 2018), WinoGrande (Sakaguchi et al., 2021).”

    From xLSTM: Extended Long Short-Term Memory (2024) · cites this paper as Zellers et al., 2019

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: 2

  1. Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, Piotr Bojanowski, and Tomas Mikolov. 2017. Bag of tricks for e cient text classification. In Proceedings of the 15th Confer- ence of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers, volume 2, pages 427-431.
  2. Matthew Peters, Mark Neumann, Mohit Iyyer, Matt Gardner, Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. Deep contextualized word repre- sentations. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), volume 1, pages 2227-2237.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zellers, R., Holtzman, A., Bisk, Y., Farhadi, A., & Choi, Y.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Published
2019
Pages
4791-4800
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2946609015
Cited by
830
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 200 · 2025: 263 · 2024: 109 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 10
FWCI
15.78
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1703166, 1256082, 1637479, 1524371)
  • Nvidia
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-15-1-, W911NF)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
commonsense reasoning, natural language inference, AI-generated text, BERT, benchmark design, pre-trained language models

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