Marie-Catherine de Marneffe

Nan-Jiang Jiang, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe

We investigate how disagreement in natural language inference (NLI) annotation arises. We developed a taxonomy of disagreement sources with 10 categories spanning 3 high-level classes. We found that some disagreements are due to uncertainty in the sentence meaning, others to annotator biases and task artifacts, leading to different interpretations of the label distribution. We explore two modeling approaches for detecting items with potential disagreement: a 4-way classification with a "Complicated" label in addition to the three standard NLI labels, and a multilabel classification approach. We found that the multilabel classification is more expressive and gives better recall of the possible interpretations in the data.

Nan-Jiang Jiang, Chenhao Tan, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe

Human label variation, or annotation disagreement, exists in many natural language processing (NLP) tasks, including natural language inference (NLI). To gain direct evidence of how NLI label variation arises, we build LiveNLI, an English dataset of 1,415 ecologically valid explanations (annotators explain the NLI labels they chose) for 122 MNLI items (at least 10 explanations per item). The LiveNLI explanations confirm that people can systematically vary on their interpretation and highlight within-label variation: annotators sometimes choose the same label for different reasons. This suggests that explanations are crucial for navigating label interpretations in general. We few-shot prompt large language models to generate explanations but the results are inconsistent: they sometimes produces valid and informative explanations, but it also generates implausible ones that do not support the label, highlighting directions for improvement.

Nan-Jiang Jiang, Chenhao Tan, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe

Human label variation (Plank 2022), or annotation disagreement, exists in many natural language processing (NLP) tasks. To be robust and trusted, NLP models need to identify such variation and be able to explain it. To this end, we created the first ecologically valid explanation dataset with diverse reasoning, LiveNLI. LiveNLI contains annotators' highlights and free-text explanations for the label(s) of their choice for 122 English Natural Language Inference items, each with at least 10 annotations. We used its explanations for chain-of-thought prompting, and found there is still room for improvement in GPT-3's ability to predict label distribution with in-context learning.

Gaurav Kamath, Sreenath Madathil, Sebastian Schuster et al.

Human reasoning often involves working over limited information to arrive at probabilistic conclusions. In its simplest form, this involves making an inference that is not strictly entailed by a premise, but rather only likely given the premise. While reasoning LLMs have demonstrated strong performance on logical and mathematical tasks, their behavior on such open-ended, non-deterministic inferences remains largely unexplored. We introduce ProbCOPA, a dataset of 210 handcrafted probabilistic inferences in English, each annotated for inference likelihood by 25--30 human participants. We find that human responses are graded and varied, revealing probabilistic judgments of the inferences in our dataset. Comparing these judgments with responses from eight state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, we show that models consistently fail to produce human-like distributions. Finally, analyzing LLM reasoning chains, we find evidence of a common reasoning pattern used to evaluate such inferences. Our findings reveal persistent differences between humans and LLMs, and underscore the need to evaluate reasoning beyond deterministic settings.

Leon Weber-Genzel, Siyao Peng, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe et al.

Human label variation arises when annotators assign different labels to the same item for valid reasons, while annotation errors occur when labels are assigned for invalid reasons. These two issues are prevalent in NLP benchmarks, yet existing research has studied them in isolation. To the best of our knowledge, there exists no prior work that focuses on teasing apart error from signal, especially in cases where signal is beyond black-and-white. To fill this gap, we introduce a systematic methodology and a new dataset, VariErr (variation versus error), focusing on the NLI task in English. We propose a 2-round annotation procedure with annotators explaining each label and subsequently judging the validity of label-explanation pairs. VariErr contains 7,732 validity judgments on 1,933 explanations for 500 re-annotated MNLI items. We assess the effectiveness of various automatic error detection (AED) methods and GPTs in uncovering errors versus human label variation. We find that state-of-the-art AED methods significantly underperform GPTs and humans. While GPT-4 is the best system, it still falls short of human performance. Our methodology is applicable beyond NLI, offering fertile ground for future research on error versus plausible variation, which in turn can yield better and more trustworthy NLP systems.

Ehsan Barkhordar, Abdulfattah Safa, Verena Blaschke et al.

Peer review plays a central role in the NLP publication process, but is susceptible to various biases. Here, we study language-of-study (LoS) bias: the tendency for reviewers to evaluate a paper differently based on the language(s) it studies, rather than its scientific merit. Despite being explicitly flagged in reviewing guidelines, such biases are poorly understood. Prior work treats such comments as part of broader categories of weak or unconstructive reviews without defining them as a distinct form of bias. We present the first systematic characterization of LoS bias, distinguishing negative and positive forms, and introduce the human-annotated dataset LOBSTER (Language-Of-study Bias in ScienTific pEer Review) and a method achieving 87.37 macro F1 for detection. We analyze 15,645 reviews to estimate how negative and positive biases differ with respect to the LoS, and find that non-English papers face substantially higher bias rates than English-only ones, with negative bias consistently outweighing positive bias. Finally, we identify four subcategories of negative bias, and find that demanding unjustified cross-lingual generalization is the most dominant form. We publicly release all resources to support work on fairer reviewing practices in NLP and beyond.

Louis Estève, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Nurit Melnik et al.

The concept of diversity has received increased consideration in Natural Language Processing (NLP) in recent years. This is due to various motivations like promoting and inclusion, approximating human linguistic behavior, and increasing systems' performance. Diversity has however often been addressed in an ad hoc manner in NLP, and with few explicit links to other domains where this notion is better theorized. We survey articles in the ACL Anthology from the past 6 years, with "diversity" or "diverse" in their title. We find a wide range of settings in which diversity is quantified, often highly specialized and using inconsistent terminology. We put forward a unified taxonomy of why, what on, where, and how diversity is measured in NLP. Diversity measures are cast upon a unified framework from ecology and economy (Stirling, 2007) with 3 dimensions of diversity: variety, balance and disparity. We discuss the trends which emerge due to this systematized approach. We believe that this study paves the way towards a better formalization of diversity in NLP, which should bring a better understanding of this notion and a better comparability between various approaches.

Pingjun Hong, Beiduo Chen, Siyao Peng et al.

Natural Language Inference datasets often exhibit human label variation. To better understand these variations, explanation-based approaches analyze the underlying reasoning behind annotators' decisions. One such approach is the LiTEx taxonomy, which categorizes free-text explanations in English into reasoning types. However, previous work applying such taxonomies has focused on within-label variation: cases where annotators agree on the final NLI label but provide different explanations. In contrast, this paper broadens the scope by examining how annotators may diverge not only in the reasoning type but also in the labeling step. We use explanations as a lens to decompose the reasoning process underlying NLI annotation and to analyze individual differences. We apply LiTEx to two NLI English datasets and align annotation variation from multiple aspects: NLI label agreement, explanation similarity, and taxonomy agreement, with an additional compounding factor of annotators' selection bias. We observe instances where annotators disagree on the label but provide highly similar explanations, suggesting that surface-level disagreement may mask underlying agreement in interpretation. Moreover, our analysis reveals individual preferences in explanation strategies and label choices. These findings highlight that agreement in reasoning types better reflects the semantic similarity of free-text explanations than label agreement alone. Our findings underscore the richness of reasoning-based explanations and the need for caution in treating labels as ground truth.

Pingjun Hong, Beiduo Chen, Siyao Peng et al.

There is increasing evidence of Human Label Variation (HLV) in Natural Language Inference (NLI), where annotators assign different labels to the same premise-hypothesis pair. However, within-label variation--cases where annotators agree on the same label but provide divergent reasoning--poses an additional and mostly overlooked challenge. Several NLI datasets contain highlighted words in the NLI item as explanations, but the same spans on the NLI item can be highlighted for different reasons, as evidenced by free-text explanations, which offer a window into annotators' reasoning. To systematically understand this problem and gain insight into the rationales behind NLI labels, we introduce LITEX, a linguistically-informed taxonomy for categorizing free-text explanations in English. Using this taxonomy, we annotate a subset of the e-SNLI dataset, validate the taxonomy's reliability, and analyze how it aligns with NLI labels, highlights, and explanations. We further assess the taxonomy's usefulness in explanation generation, demonstrating that conditioning generation on LITEX yields explanations that are linguistically closer to human explanations than those generated using only labels or highlights. Our approach thus not only captures within-label variation but also shows how taxonomy-guided generation for reasoning can bridge the gap between human and model explanations more effectively than existing strategies.

Nanjiang Jiang, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe

We investigate how well BERT performs on predicting factuality in several existing English datasets, encompassing various linguistic constructions. Although BERT obtains a strong performance on most datasets, it does so by exploiting common surface patterns that correlate with certain factuality labels, and it fails on instances where pragmatic reasoning is necessary. Contrary to what the high performance suggests, we are still far from having a robust system for factuality prediction.

Joakim Nivre, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, Filip Ginter et al.

Universal Dependencies is an open community effort to create cross-linguistically consistent treebank annotation for many languages within a dependency-based lexicalist framework. The annotation consists in a linguistically motivated word segmentation; a morphological layer comprising lemmas, universal part-of-speech tags, and standardized morphological features; and a syntactic layer focusing on syntactic relations between predicates, arguments and modifiers. In this paper, we describe version 2 of the guidelines (UD v2), discuss the major changes from UD v1 to UD v2, and give an overview of the currently available treebanks for 90 languages.

Sandesh Swamy, Alan Ritter, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe

Social media users often make explicit predictions about upcoming events. Such statements vary in the degree of certainty the author expresses toward the outcome:"Leonardo DiCaprio will win Best Actor" vs. "Leonardo DiCaprio may win" or "No way Leonardo wins!". Can popular beliefs on social media predict who will win? To answer this question, we build a corpus of tweets annotated for veridicality on which we train a log-linear classifier that detects positive veridicality with high precision. We then forecast uncertain outcomes using the wisdom of crowds, by aggregating users' explicit predictions. Our method for forecasting winners is fully automated, relying only on a set of contenders as input. It requires no training data of past outcomes and outperforms sentiment and tweet volume baselines on a broad range of contest prediction tasks. We further demonstrate how our approach can be used to measure the reliability of individual accounts' predictions and retrospectively identify surprise outcomes.