Can We Do Interpretable NLI with Graphs Based on Atomic Propositions?
While Large Language Model (LLM)-based Natural Language Inference (NLI) systems achieve high accuracy, their decision-making processes lack auditable…
Arxiv 2 versions
-
1 new sentence, beginning: “On ANLI, it matches the published performance of RoBERTa-large on rounds R2 and R3 (48.0% vs. 48.9% and 44.9% vs. 44.4%) but…”
Can We Do Interpretable NLI with Graphs Based on Atomic Propositions?
While Large Language Model (LLM)-based Natural Language Inference (NLI) systems achieve high accuracy, their decision-making processes lack auditable structures. This paper explores whether NLI can be performed using only interpretable, graph-based representations of evidence. We introduce a fully graph-based pipeline where the classifier never directly processes the input text. Instead, sentences are decomposed into atomic propositions, converted into ConceptNet triples via constrained decoding, and represented as three graphs per pair: premise, hypothesis, and a retrieved ConceptNet subgraph. These graphs are then fed into a fine-tuned 0.8-billion-parameter language model. On the SNLI dataset, our pipeline achieves 89.7% accuracy, just 1.9 points below an identically trained text-based model. On ANLI, it matches the published performance of RoBERTa-large on rounds R2 and R3 (48.0% vs. 48.9% and 44.9% vs. 44.4%) but trails by 16 points on R1, resulting in an overall gap of 9 to 14 points compared to its text counterpart. We term this gap the price of interpretability and demonstrate that it stems from representational limitations rather than data constraints. Ablation studies further reveal that graphs and text are complementary: combining both modalities achieves 92.1% accuracy on SNLI.
-
Can We Do Interpretable NLI with Graphs Based on Atomic Propositions?
While Large Language Model (LLM)-based Natural Language Inference (NLI) systems achieve high accuracy, their decision-making processes lack auditable structures. This paper explores whether NLI can be performed using only interpretable, graph-based representations of evidence. We introduce a fully graph-based pipeline where the classifier never directly processes the input text. Instead, sentences are decomposed into atomic propositions, converted into ConceptNet triples via constrained decoding, and represented as three graphs per pair: premise, hypothesis, and a retrieved ConceptNet subgraph. These graphs are then fed into a fine-tuned 0.8-billion-parameter language model. On the SNLI dataset, our pipeline achieves 89.7% accuracy, just 1.9 points below an identically trained text-based model. On ANLI, it matches the published performance of RoBERTa-large on rounds R2 and R3 (50% accuracy) but trails by 16 points on R1, resulting in an overall gap of 9 to 14 points compared to its text counterpart. We term this gap the price of interpretability and demonstrate that it stems from representational limitations rather than data constraints. Ablation studies further reveal that graphs and text are complementary: combining both modalities achieves 92.1% accuracy on SNLI.
Versions are compared on the headline and summary the publisher puts in their feed. An edit to the body of an article that leaves both untouched will not appear here.
Why am I seeing this Ranked on source trust — arXiv
It ranks mainly on source trust: arXiv is the most reliable outlet we track on this subject, and is the only one on the story so far.
It clears the bar without leading strongly on any one factor. A middling score is not a claim that the story is important — only that nothing about it is weak.
Link-outLink-out, because it scores 0.40, below the 0.50 bar for a write-up. Link-out means we point at the publisher and say nothing of our own.
| Factor | Weight | Score | Contribution | Where it came from |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corroboration | 0.35 | 0.39 | +0.135 34% | 1 independent org on the story. Tier-3 aggregators never corroborate — they can show something is circulating, never that it is true. |
| Source trustleads | 0.25 | 0.85 | +0.212 53% | arXiv is the highest-trust source on this story and is first-party — the organisation announcing its own news. Trust is taken from the best source, not averaged. |
| Pickup rate | 0.20 | 0.00 | +0.000 0% | One counted organisation, so there is no spread to measure — nothing has picked this up to set a rate. |
| Freshness | 0.20 | 0.27 | +0.054 14% | Halves every 10 hours from the newest item on the story. This is the only factor that rewards a story for nothing more than being recent. |
Corroboration counts distinct organisations, once each, and only from tiers 1 and 2. Freshness halves every 10 hours, so this ranking is a snapshot and will differ at the next build.
What happened
While Large Language Model (LLM)-based Natural Language Inference (NLI) systems achieve high accuracy, their decision-making processes lack auditable structures. This paper explores whether NLI can be performed using only interpretable, graph-based representations of evidence. We introduce a fully graph-based pipeline where the classifier never directly processes the input text. Instead, sentences are decomposed into atomic propositions, converted into ConceptNet triples via constrained decoding, and represented as three graphs per pair: premise, hypothesis, and a retrieved ConceptNet subgraph. These graphs are then fed into a fine-tuned 0.8-billion-parameter language model.
How this story arrived
Ordered by when each source was first observed, which is what the velocity figure is computed from. Publishers backdate; observed order does not.
- 01 Arxivfirst-party first seen Can We Do Interpretable NLI with Graphs Based on Atomic Propositions?
Overclock clusters coverage from independent sources and grades it automatically. The figures above are computed, not editorial. This page summarises and links to reporting by the outlets named — follow the links for the original work.