Neural abstractive summarization models are prone to generate summaries that are factually inconsistent with their source documents. Previous work has introduced the task of recognizing such factual inconsistency as a downstream application of natural language inference (NLI). However, state-of-the-art NLI models perform poorly in this context due to their inability to generalize to the target task. In this work, we show that NLI models can be effective for this task when the training data is augmented with high-quality task-oriented examples. We introduce Falsesum, a data generation pipeline leveraging a controllable text generation model to perturb human-annotated summaries, introducing varying types of factual inconsistencies. Unlike previously introduced document-level NLI datasets, our generated dataset contains examples that are diverse and inconsistent yet plausible. We show that models trained on a Falsesum-augmented NLI dataset improve the state-of-the-art performance across four benchmarks for detecting factual inconsistency in summarization.

Natural language inference (NLI) has been widely used as a task to train and evaluate models for language understanding. However, the ability of NLI models to perform inferences requiring understanding of figurative language such as idioms and metaphors remains understudied. We introduce the IMPLI (Idiomatic and Metaphoric Paired Language Inference) dataset, an English dataset consisting of paired sentences spanning idioms and metaphors. We develop novel methods to generate 24k semiautomatic pairs as well as manually creating 1.8k gold pairs. We use IMPLI to evaluate NLI models based on RoBERTa fine-tuned on the widely used MNLI dataset. We then show that while they can reliably detect entailment relationship between figurative phrases with their literal counterparts, they perform poorly on similarly structured examples where pairs are designed to be non-entailing. This suggests the limits of current NLI models with regard to understanding figurative language and this dataset serves as a benchmark for future improvements in this direction.

Recent prompt-based approaches allow pretrained language models to achieve strong performances on few-shot finetuning by reformulating downstream tasks as a language modeling problem. In this work, we demonstrate that, despite its advantages on low data regimes, finetuned prompt-based models for sentence pair classification tasks still suffer from a common pitfall of adopting inference heuristics based on lexical overlap, e.g., models incorrectly assuming a sentence pair is of the same meaning because they consist of the same set of words. Interestingly, we find that this particular inference heuristic is significantly less present in the zero-shot evaluation of the prompt-based model, indicating how finetuning can be destructive to useful knowledge learned during the pretraining. We then show that adding a regularization that preserves pretraining weights is effective in mitigating this destructive tendency of few-shot finetuning. Our evaluation on three datasets demonstrates promising improvements on the three corresponding challenge datasets used to diagnose the inference heuristics.