The DOI matches its DataCite record; 23 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
e-SNLI: Natural Language Inference with Natural Language Explanations
Open accessAbstract
In order for machine learning to garner widespread public adoption, models must be able to provide interpretable and robust explanations for their decisions, as well as learn from human-provided explanations at train time. In this work, we extend the Stanford Natural Language Inference dataset with an additional layer of human-annotated natural language explanations of the entailment relations. We further implement models that incorporate these explanations into their training process and output them at test time. We show how our corpus of explanations, which we call e-SNLI, can be used for various goals, such as obtaining full sentence justifications of a model's decisions, improving universal sentence representations and transferring to out-of-domain NLI datasets. Our dataset thus opens up a range of research directions for using natural language explanations, both for improving models and for asserting their trust.
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
“Rationale supervision work, such as e-SNLI (Camburu et al., 2018) and ERASER (DeYoung et al., 2020), provides gold explanations for post hoc evaluation or training but does not embed quality criteria into the generation process itself.”
From GIER: Gap-Driven Self-Refinement for Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Camburu et al., 2018
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“researchers increasingly draw on an LLMs' own text generation capabilities to produce natural language explanations (NLEs) alongside predictions [22,23]”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Although LLMs can be prompted to self-explain [2], these explanations are unreliable [8].”
From ProSLM: A Prolog Synergized Language Model for explainable Domain Specific Knowledge Based Question Answering (2024) · cites this paper as [2]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The PredictAndExplain method, introduced in [2], illustrates that models can be trained to generate explanations of their outputs without sacrificing performance, but this approach requires access to a reliable explanation-augmented dataset for training.”
From ProSLM: A Prolog Synergized Language Model for explainable Domain Specific Knowledge Based Question Answering (2024) · cites this paper as [2]
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 · cited 1×
“Therefore, our encoders are 2048-bidirectional-LSTMs [15] with max-pooling, resulting in a sentence representation dimension of 4096.”
MethodImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database
Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.-J., Li, K., & Fei-Fei, L. (2009) · 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2009.5206848 · Cited by 65,333 · cited 1×
“In computer vision, pretrained ImageNet-based encoders [10] provide standard image feature extractors for other downstream tasks.”
BackgroundNeural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translate
Bahdanau, D., Cho, K., & Bengio, Y. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1409.0473 · Cited by 16,213 · cited 2×
“Attention-based models, such as [2, 25], offer some degree of interpretability and have been shown to also improve performance on downstream tasks.”
BackgroundShow, Attend and Tell: Neural Image Caption Generation with Visual Attention
Xu, K., Ba, J., Kiros, R., Cho, K., Courville, A., Salakhutdinov, R., Zemel, R., & Bengio, Y. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1502.03044 · Cited by 8,248
A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference
Bowman, S. R., Angeli, G., Potts, C., & Manning, C. D. (2015) · Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d15-1075 · Cited by 3,377 · cited 2×
“To address this deficiency, we have collected a large corpus of human-annotated explanations for the Stanford Natural Language Inference (SNLI) dataset [3].”
BackgroundMethodA Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inference
Williams, A., Nangia, N., & Bowman, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1101 · Cited by 3,342 · cited 1×
“We test how our explanations affect the direct transfer in both label prediction and explanation generation by looking at SICK-E [20] and MultiNLI [26].”
BackgroundSupervised Learning of Universal Sentence Representations from Natural Language Inference Data
Conneau, A., Kiela, D., Schwenk, H., Barrault, L., & Bordes, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1070 · Cited by 2,049 · cited 8×
“Throughout our experiments, our models follow the architecture presented in Conneau et al. [7], as we build directly on top of their code 2 .”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA Decomposable Attention Model for Natural Language Inference
Parikh, A. P., Täckström, O., Das, D., & Uszkoreit, J. (2016) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1244 · Cited by 1,351 · cited 3×
“Glockner et al. show that models achieving high accuracies on SNLI, such as [21, 22, 6], show dramatically reduced performance on this simpler dataset, while the model of Chen et al. [5] is more robust due to incorporating exter-nal knowledge.”
BackgroundResultKiros, R., Zhu, Y., Salakhutdinov, R., Zemel, R. S., Torralba, A., Urtasun, R., & Fidler, S. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1506.06726 · Cited by 1,293 · cited 2×
“Traditional approaches make use of very large unsupervised datasets [17, 14], taking weeks to train.”
BackgroundAnnotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Data
Gururangan, S., Swayamdipta, S., Levy, O., Schwartz, R., Bowman, S., & Smith, N. A. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-2017 · Cited by 907 · cited 3×
“Recently, Gururangan et al. [13] cast doubt on whether models trained on SNLI are learning to understand language, or are largely fixating on spurious correlations, also called artifacts.”
BackgroundInfluential
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- [4][4] Chan, W., Jaitly, N., Le, Q. V., and Vinyals, O. (2015). Listen, attend and spell. CoRR , abs/1508.01211. - · arXiv
- [5][5] Chen, Q., Zhu, X., Ling, Z., Inkpen, D., and Wei, S. (2017). Natural language inference with external knowledge. CoRR , abs/1711.04289. - · arXiv
- [6][6] Chen, Q., Zhu, X., Ling, Z., Wei, S., and Jiang, H. (2016). Enhancing and combining sequential and tree LSTM for natural language inference. CoRR , abs/1609.06038. - · arXiv
- [10][10] Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.-J., Li, K., and Fei-Fei, L. (2009). ImageNet: A largescale hierarchical image database. In Proc. of CVPR . -
- [19][19] Liu, P., Qiu, X., and Huang, X. (2016). Modelling interaction of sentence pair with coupledlstms. CoRR , abs/1605.05573. - · arXiv
- [24][24] Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016). "why should I trust you?": Explaining the predictions of any classifier. CoRR , abs/1602.04938. - · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–369 of 369
On Advances in Text Generation from Images Beyond Captioning: A Case Study in Self-Rationalization
Palaskar, S., Bhagia, A., Bisk, Y., Metze, F., Black, A. W., & Marasović, A. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.194 · Cited by 4
A Report on the FigLang 2022 Shared Task on Understanding Figurative Language
Saakyan, A., Chakrabarty, T., Ghosh, D., & Muresan, S. (2022) · Workshop on Figurative Language Processing (FigLang) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.flp-1.26 · Cited by 2
“…entail/contradict labels, but also to explain the decision using natural language explanations that are comprehensible to an end-user assessing model’s reliability (Camburu et al., 2018; Majumder et al., 2021; Wiegreffe et al., 2021), leading to novel datasets such as e-SNLI (Camburu et al., 2018).”
BackgroundAssessing Monotonicity Reasoning in Dutch through Natural Language Inference
Wijnholds, G. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-eacl.110 · Cited by 2
Kotonya, N., Krishnasamy, S., Tetreault, J., & Jaimes, A. (2023) · Workshop on Evaluation and Comparison of NLP Systems (Eval4NLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.eval4nlp-1.17 · Cited by 6
Managing Customer Relations in an Explainable Way
Galitsky, B. A. (2020) · Human-computer interaction series · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-52167-7_8 · Cited by 2
Towards Prediction Explainability through Sparse CommunicationPreprint
Treviso, M., & Martins, A. F. T. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 2
You Can Do Better! If You Elaborate the Reason When Making PredictionPreprint
Li, D., Tao, J., Chen, Q., & Hu, B. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.14919 · Cited by 3
“To evaluate the proposed approach, we also use two public datasets e-SNLI [10] and CoS-E [8].”
InfluentialExplaining the Road Not TakenPreprint
Shen, H., & Huang, T.-H. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.14973 · Cited by 4
“Typical question [3]: • How can we explain a system’s decision us-ing natural language justification?”
BackgroundExplaining Neural Network Predictions on Sentence Pairs via Learning Word-Group MasksPreprint
Chen, H., Feng, S., Ganhotra, J., Wan, H., Gunasekara, C., Joshi, S., & Ji, Y. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.04488 · Cited by 2
“Datasets e-SNLI (Camburu et al., 2018) is natural language inference task, where the model predicts the semantic relationship between two input sentences as entailment, contradiction, or neutral.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialOn Sample Based Explanation Methods for NLP:Efficiency, Faithfulness, and Semantic EvaluationPreprint
Zhang, W., Huang, Z., Zhu, Y., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.04753 · Cited by 2
“The Discussion of Explanation Faithfulness in NLP The issue of Faithfulness of Explanations was primarily discussed under the explanation generation context (Camburu et al., 2018) where there is no guarantee that a generated explanation would be faithful to a model’s inner-workings (Jacovi and Goldberg, 2020).”
BackgroundOrder Constraints in Optimal TransportPreprint
Lim, F., Wynter, L., & Lim, S. H. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.07275 · Cited by 2
“Sentence Relationship Classification: We use an annotated dataset from the enhanced Stanford Natural Language Inference (e-SNLI) (Camburu et al., 2018; Swanson et al., 2020) that includes English sentence pairs classified as “entailment”, “contradiction” or “neutral”.”
MethodSelfExplain: A Self-Explaining Architecture for Neural Text ClassifiersPreprint
Rajagopal, D., Balachandran, V., Hovy, E. H., & Tsvetkov, Y. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.12279 · Cited by 15
“, 2019), e-SNLI (Camburu et al., 2018) and recently, Eraser benchmark (DeYoung et al.”
SIDU-TXT: An XAI algorithm for NLP with a holistic assessment approachPreprint
Jahromi, M. N. S., Muddamsetty, S. M., Jarlner, A. S. S., Høgenhaug, A. H., Gammeltoft‐Hansen, T., & Moeslund, T. B. (2024) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/jemvk · Cited by 2
LLM-Human Pipeline for Cultural Grounding of Conversations
Pujari, R., & Goldwasser, D. (2025) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.48 · Cited by 2
Aligning Black-box Language Models with Human Judgments
van den Burg, G. J. J., Suzuki, G., Liu, W., & Şensoy, M. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-naacl.376 · Cited by 2
Jiang, M., Hu, B., & Zhang, X. (2025) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2025.107855 · Cited by 1
TRIPLEx: Triple Extraction for Explanation
Setzu, M., Monreale, A., & Minervini, P. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Machine Intelligence (CogMI) · doi:10.1109/cogmi52975.2021.00015 · Cited by 1
Analyzing the Support Level for Tips Extracted from Product Reviews
Farber, M., Carmel, D., Kuchy, L., & Mejer, A. (2022) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/3477495.3531805 · Cited by 1
“A popular approach for support-level detection [3, 23, 26] is training a specialised ML model for this task based on annotated data.”
BackgroundA Compare-and-contrast Multistage Pipeline for Uncovering Financial Signals in Financial Reports
Ju, J.-H., Huang, Y.-S., Lin, C.-W., Lin, C. T., & Wang, C. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.800 · Cited by 3
“Signal highlighting warm-up As we view signal highlighting as binary token classification, we first fine-tune the model f(·) on e-SNLI (Camburu et al., 2018), an external human-annotated dataset, to obtain a zero-shot model.”
MethodSETI: Systematicity Evaluation of Textual Inference
Fu, X., & Frank, A. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.252 · Cited by 1
Few Shot Rationale Generation using Self-Training with Dual Teachers
Veerubhotla, A. S., Poddar, L., Yin, J., Szarvas, G., & Eswaran, S. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.297 · Cited by 3
Lin, Y.-E., Yen, A.-Z., Huang, H., & Chen, H. (2022) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.365 · Cited by 1
“This is different from simply comparing the relation be-tween two sentences in a natural language inference (NLI) task (Bowman et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2018; Camburu et al., 2018).”
BackgroundConditional Natural Language Inference
Kim, Y., Rahimi, R., & Allan, J. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.456 · Cited by 1
“Perturbation-based methods (Ribeiro et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2020) have shown to be effective in identifying tokens that contribute to contradiction or neutral labels when evaluated on e-SNLI (Cam-buru et al., 2018) or MNLITag (Kim et al., 2020).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDynamic Top-k Estimation Consolidates Disagreement between Feature Attribution Methods
Kamp, J., Beinborn, L., & Fokkens, A. S. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.379 · Cited by 1
Towards Interpreting the Behavior of Large Language Models on Software Engineering Tasks
Dipongkor, A. K. (2024) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1145/3639478.3639798 · Cited by 1
Explanation based Bias Decoupling Regularization for Natural Language Inference
Zang, J., & Liu, H. (2024) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn60899.2024.10651216 · Cited by 1
“Leveraging human explanations from the eSNLI dataset [10], EBD-Reg establishes a triple parallel supervision training objective: (a) Distinguishing, to identify keywords and biases; (b) Decoupling, to encourage the model to focus on keywords while suppressing attention to biases; (c) Aligning,…”
MethodA Hypothesis-Driven Framework for the Analysis of Self-Rationalising Models
Braun, M., & Kunz, J. (2024) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.eacl-srw.11 · Cited by 1
Wang, Y., Nurbakova, D., & Calabretto, S. (2025) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.bsnlp-1.22 · Cited by 1
“Contribution Analysis: Prior work in cross-lingual propaganda detection has primarily focused on either data augmentation strategies (Singh et al., 2019; Lancheros et al., 2025) or explanation-enhanced models (Camburu et al., 2018) independently.”
Improving the Precision of Natural Textual Entailment Problem Datasets.
Bernardy, J.-P., & Chatzikyriakidis, S. (2020) · Language Resources and Evaluation · Cited by 1
Language-Based Syllogistic Reasoning Using Deep Neural Networks
Aghahadi, Z., & Talebpour, A. (2022) · Cognitive Semantics · doi:10.1163/23526416-bja10026 · Cited by 2
A Multi-task Approach for Machine Reading Comprehension Form Named Entity Recognition Tasks
Zhang, Y., Deng, J., Ma, Y., & Li, J. (2023) · Atlantis Highlights in Computer Sciences/Atlantis highlights in computer sciences · doi:10.2991/978-94-6463-040-4_73 · Cited by 1
Parallel Sentence-Level Explanation Generation for Real-World Low-Resource Scenarios
Liu, Y., Chen, X., & Dai, Q. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp49357.2023.10094616 · Cited by 1
“…behind model decisions, such as attention distribution [14], heatmap [15], input keywords [16], etc. Due to the better human readability, many works exploit generating sentence-level human language explanations to better interpret model predictions and have achieved promising performance [17, 18].”
BackgroundMethodMohamed, S. S. N., & Srinivasan, K. (2023) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.semeval-1.131 · Cited by 1
What Gets Echoed? Understanding the "Pointers" in Explanations of Persuasive ArgumentsPreprint
Atkinson, D., Srinivasan, K. B., & Tan, C. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.00523 · Cited by 1
“but also informs the process of collecting explanations that machine learning systems learn from (Hancock et al., 2018; Rajani et al., 2019; Camburu et al., 2018).”
BackgroundLEAN-LIFE: A Label-Efficient Annotation Framework Towards Learning from ExplanationPreprint
Lee, D., Khanna, R., Lin, B. Y., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.07499 · Cited by 1
“Another effort can be found in (Camburu et al., 2018) work to extend the Stanford Natural Language Inference dataset with natural language explanations––this extension was done for the important textual entailment recognition task.”
BackgroundExplainability-aided Domain Generalization for Image ClassificationPreprint
Schmidt, R. M. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.01742 · Cited by 3
“The additional task usually tries to provide either text explanations [26, 79, 81, 207], an explanation association [6, 44, 90, 106], or prototypes [32, 114] which differ in the provided explainability type as well as the degree of insight.”
BackgroundSTRICTA: Structured Reasoning in Critical Text Assessment for Peer Review and Beyond
Dycke, N., Zečević, M., Kuznetsov, I., Suess, B., Kersting, K., & Gurevych, I. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1107 · Cited by 1
GIER: Gap-Driven Self-Refinement for Large Language Models
Dewri, R. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.00325
“Ratio-nale supervision work, such as e-SNLI (Camburu et al., 2018) and ERASER (DeYoung et al., 2020), provides gold explanations for post hoc evaluation or training but does not embed quality criteria into the generation process itself.”
R4C: A Benchmark for Evaluating RC Systems to Get the Right Answer for the Right ReasonPreprint
Inoue, N., Stenetorp, P., & Inui, K. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.04601
“Another direction, which we follow, includes evaluating a systems’ reasoning (Jansen, 2018; Yang et al., 2018; Thorne and Vlachos, 2018; Camburu et al., 2018; Fan et al., 2019; Rajani et al., 2019).”
BackgroundInfluentialMaking Negation-word Entailment Judgment via Supplementing BERT with Aggregative Pattern
Wu, T.-M., & Su, K. (2020) · Conference on Technologies and Applications of Artificial Intelligence (TAAI) · doi:10.1109/taai51410.2020.00012
“This task is widely adopted for evaluating natural language inference (NLI) [2], as it possesses the simplest form in related tasks such as Q&A [3], in which the Yes/No question can be converted into an entailment judgment problem.”
BackgroundSummarize-then-Answer: Generating Concise Explanations for Multi-hop Reading Comprehension
Inoue, N. (2022) · Journal of Natural Language Processing · doi:10.5715/jnlp.29.237 · Cited by 3
Learning When and What to Ask: a Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning Framework.Preprint
Nguyen, K., Bisk, Y., & Daumé, H. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University)
Defences and threats in safe deep learning
Chan, A. (2021) · DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) · doi:10.32657/10356/152976
Connecting Attributions and QA Model Behavior on Realistic CounterfactualsPreprint
Ye, X., Nair, R., & Durrett, G. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.04515 · Cited by 9
“At-tributions are a flexible explanation format and can be applied to many domains, including sentiment analysis (Guan et al., 2019; De Cao et al., 2020), visual recognition (Simonyan et al., 2013), and natural language inference (Camburu et al., 2018; Thorne et al., 2019).”
BackgroundThe model thinks what?! Interpreting deep NLP models with rationales and influence
Jain, S. (2022) · Digital Repository Service (Northeastern University) · doi:10.17760/d20467212
Dynamic monitoring method of mutation event network public opinion based on topic crawler
Li, Q., Li, J., Wang, Z., et al. (2023) · International Conference on Green Communication, Network, and Internet of Things (CNIoT) · doi:10.1117/12.2667861
“Using the framework to develop a crawler can focus on collecting data logic and reduce development costs [8].”
MethodFrontiers in Explainable Automated Writing Evaluation
Inui, K., Ishii, Y., Matsubayashi, Y., Inoue, N., Naito, S., Isobe, Y., Funayama, H., & KIKUCHI, S. (2023) · IEICE ESS FUNDAMENTALS REVIEW · doi:10.1587/essfr.16.4_289
Zaninello, A., & Magnini, B. (2023) · NLRSE · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.nlrse-1.3
“For these reasons, in our experiments, we select the e-SNLI dataset Camburu et al. (2018), where sentence pairs traditionally employed for a textual inference task (pairs are labelled with entail , contradict or neutral tags) were augmented with explanations for the relation tag, collected through…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialExplanation Graph Generation via Generative Pre-training over Synthetic Graphs
Cui, H., Li, S., Zhang, Y., & Shi, Q. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.629
Easy to Decide, Hard to Agree: Reducing Disagreements Between Saliency Methods
Jukić, J., Tutek, M., & Šnajder, J. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.582
LEXPLAIN: Improving Model Explanations via Lexicon Supervision
Ahia, O., Gonen, H., Balachandran, V., Tsvetkov, Y., & Smith, N. A. (2023) · STARSEM · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.starsem-1.19
“Extensive recent work has sought to advance NLP models so that they offer explanations for their predictions (Rajani et al., 2019; Lundberg and Lee, 2017; Camburu et al., 2018).”
BackgroundOpportunities and challenges of explainable artificial intelligence in medicine
Yen, A.-Z., Wu, C.-K., & Chen, H. (2023) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-99136-0.00009-x · Cited by 1
FISH: A Financial Interactive System for Signal Highlighting
Huang, T.-W., Ju, J.-H., Huang, Y.-S., Lin, C., Chiang, Y.-S., & Wang, C.-J. (2023) · Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-demo.7
“We further fine-tune the model using the e-SNLI dataset (Camburu et al., 2018), which was compiled for a natural language inference classification task that determines the entailment or contradiction relation for a given pair of sentences with human-annotated highlighted words.”
MethodEcologically Valid Explanations for Label Variation in NLI
Jiang, N., Tan, C., & de Marneffe, M.-C. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.712 · Cited by 2
Machine Reading Comprehension using Case-based Reasoning
Thai, D., Agarwal, D., Chaudhary, M., Zhao, W., Das, R., Lee, J. Y., Hajishirzi, H., Zaheer, M., & McCallum, A. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.564 · Cited by 4
IAEval: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Instance Attribution on Natural Language Understanding
Gu, P., Shen, Y., Wang, L., Wang, Q., Wu, H., & Mao, Z. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.801 · Cited by 2
“For FA methods, many datasets with human-annotated evidences have been published for evaluation (DeYoung et al., 2020; Mathew et al., 2021; Camburu et al., 2018; Rajani et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2022).”
Ghosal, D., Aditya, S., & Choudhury, M. (2023) · International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (IJCNLP-AACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.ijcnlp-main.56
“Complex NLP tasks such as Natural Language Inference (NLI) often requires reasoning over multiple steps using multiple facts and implicit common-sense knowledge (Trivedi et al., 2020; Sap et al., 2019; Camburu et al., 2018).”
BackgroundA prototype for sentence classification using statistical methods
Nishy Reshmi, S., & Shreelekshmi, R. (2024) · Software Impacts · doi:10.1016/j.simpa.2024.100651
Firmawan, D. B., Siahaan, D., & Saikhu, A. (2024) · International Seminar on Intelligent Technology and Its Applications · doi:10.1109/isitia63062.2024.10668363
“We selected SNLI because of its status as a significant dataset in the field of natural language understanding, which demands a thorough understanding of the intricate aspects of common-sense knowledge [16].”
BackgroundAligning Knowledge Graphs Provided by Humans and Generated by Neural Networks
Li, T., Zhou, J., & Wang, H. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata62323.2024.10825070
Research on Counterfactual Text Augmentation for Text Classification Tasks
Huang, M., Wang, Y., Zhang, J., & Wang, J. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Progress in Informatics and Computing · doi:10.1109/pic62406.2024.10892790 · Cited by 1
“2) Datasets: This paper utilizes the publicly available benchmark dataset e-SNLI [15] [16] for training and analysis of text causal feature identification and counterfactual text generation.”
Towards Explainable Medical Machine Reading Comprehension With Rationale Generation
Li, D., He, S., Hu, B., & Chen, Q. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing · doi:10.1109/taslpro.2025.3555105
“…choose the corresponding explanation [22], [36]; 2) predicting the label first, then generating the explanation with the label and original inputs [21]; 3) generating explanations first and then using the generated explanations to predict the labels [23], [30]; 4) predicting the label and…”
PORT: Preference Optimization on Reasoning Traces
Lahlou, S., Abubaker, A., & Hacid, H. (2025) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.549 · Cited by 6
Putra, I. M. S., Siahaan, D., & Saikhu, A. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3581954
Ren, T., Zhang, Z., Wang, H., & Rafferty, K. (2025) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/3726302.3730047
“Furthermore, inspired by the Natural Language Inference (NLI) task [5, 30, 31], OBELLA explicitly represents reference incompleteness through a 1 Token counts are based on the BERT-cased tokenizer [12], applied uniformly. neutral class that encompasses candidate answers which are plausible but not…”
GraphNarrator: Generating Textual Explanations for Graph Neural Networks
Pan, B., Xiong, Z., Wu, G., Zhang, Z., Zhang, Y., Hu, Y., & Zhao, L. (2025) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.2 · Cited by 13
“These methods provide textual justifications for model predictions, aiming to bridge the gap be-tween model decisions and human understanding (Camburu et al., 2018; Rajani et al., 2019; Narang et al., 2020).”
JudgeMoE: Distributional Aggregation for LLM-as-a-Judge
Liu, Y., James, J., Wang, Y., Zhao, K., Xiao, C., & Lin, C. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.07109
Human Evaluation of Spoken vs. Visual Explanations for Open-Domain QA
Gonzalez, A. V., Bansal, G., Fan, A., Jia, R., Mehdad, Y., & Iyer, S. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.15075 · Cited by 7
“Evaluating Explanations The quality of NL explanations has previously been evaluated using automatic metrics that measure the agreement of explanations with human annotations (DeYoung et al., 2020; Paranjape et al., 2020; Swanson et al., 2020; Camburu et al., 2018; Rajani et al., 2019).”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Camburu, O.-M., Rocktäschel, T., Lukasiewicz, T., & Blunsom, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- University College London (GB)
- Google (United States) (US)
- ORCID
- Lukasiewicz, Thomas
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 31
- Pages
- 9539-9549
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1812.01193
- OpenAlex
- W2891012317
- Semantic Scholar
- c242438dac5aa4d9b13766c14240bb8426690d58
- Cited by
- 367
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2025: 19 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 94 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 9
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- neural information processing systems
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- natural language inference, natural language explanations, entailment relations, explainable AI, out-of-domain transfer, interpretability
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
