analiza aiqbench
This preregistered replication challenges a prior finding that non-upward monotonicity operators reduce label agreement in Natural Language Inference datasets. The study demonstrates that the original negative correlation was likely an artifact of selecting only low-agreement items rather than a fundamental property of human labeling populations. For researchers relying on re-annotated resources, this underscores the critical need to explicitly declare selection criteria when analyzing Human Label Variation structures.
Selection Shapes the Boundary: A Preregistered Replication of Monotonicity and Label Agreement in Unselected NLI Populations
arXiv:2607.19231v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Prior work on human label variation (HLV) in natural language inference (NLI) has often relied on re-annotation resources that select items by disagreement level. An earlier study (arXiv:2607.15870) found that hypotheses containing non-upward monotonicity operators showed lower label agreement in ChaosNLI (Cliff's delta = -0.284), which is restricted to items whose majority label carries exactly three of five votes. We preregistered a replication of this boundary in the unselected populations that ChaosNLI was drawn from: the SNLI and MultiNLI development sets, using the same operator tagger and a four-level ordinal agreement outcome. The registered prediction fails. All seven contrasts return a positive Cliff's delta (non-upward items agree slightly more, not less), the only significant confirmatory contrast has the opposite sign to the registration, and every effect is far below our smallest effect size of interest (0.10). Robustness checks support the measurement: simulated tagger misclassification shrinks the effects rather than manufacturing them, and a manual re-tagging audit reaches four-class agreement of 0.875 on a fresh 200-item sample. We conclude that the earlier negative boundary is plausibly a structure conditional on low-agreement selection rather than a population-level property, and that HLV structure claims built on selected re-annotation resources should state their selection conditional explicitly.
Abstract:Prior work on human label variation (HLV) in natural language inference (NLI) has often relied on re-annotation resources that select items by disagreement level. An earlier study (arXiv:2607.15870) found that hypotheses containing non-upward monotonicity operators showed lower label agreement in ChaosNLI (Cliff's delta = -0.284), which is restricted to items whose majority label carries exactly three of five votes. We preregistered a replication of this boundary in the unselected populations that ChaosNLI was drawn from: the SNLI and MultiNLI development sets, using the same operator tagger and a four-level ordinal agreement outcome. The registered prediction fails. All seven contrasts return a positive Cliff's delta (non-upward items agree slightly more, not less), the only significant confirmatory contrast has the opposite sign to the registration, and every effect is far below our smallest effect size of interest (0.10). Robustness checks support the measurement: simulated tagger misclassification shrinks the effects rather than manufacturing them, and a manual re-tagging audit reaches four-class agreement of 0.875 on a fresh 200-item sample. We conclude that the earlier negative boundary is plausibly a structure conditional on low-agreement selection rather than a population-level property, and that HLV structure claims built on selected re-annotation resources should state their selection conditional explicitly.
11 pages, 2 figures, 9 tables. Preregistered replication. Code, data, and audit trail: this https URL
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2607.19231 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2607.19231v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.19231 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 313 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
How Much Human Label Variation Does Formal Semantic Structure Explain?: Group-Level Effects and Item-Level Ceilings in NLI
arXiv · 1 oct. 2026
How Much Human Label Variation Does Formal Semantic Structure Explain?: Group-Level Effects and Item-Level Ceilings in NLI
arXiv · 20 iul. 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · 2 oct. 2026

Confirming Claims of Superposition and Adversarial Examples in Toy Models
LessWrong · 1 aug. 2026