Cited by 32Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

Can Rationalization Improve Robustness?

Open access
Chen, Howard, He, Jacqueline, Narasimhan, Karthik, Chen, Danqi·2022·Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies

Abstract

Howard Chen, Jacqueline He, Karthik Narasimhan, Danqi Chen. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 2022.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.278

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Jasmijn Bastings, Wilker Aziz, and Ivan Titov. 2019. Interpretable neural predictions with differentiable binary variables. In Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pages 2963-2977.
  2. Oana-Maria Camburu, Brendan Shillingford, Pasquale Minervini, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Phil Blunsom. 2020. Make up your mind! adversarial generation of inconsistent natural language explanations. In As- sociation for Computational Linguistics (ACL).
  3. Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. 2017. Pointer sentinel mixture mod- els. In International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations (ICLR).
  4. Sofia Serrano and Noah A Smith. 2019. Is attention in- terpretable? In Association for Computational Lin- guistics (ACL), pages 2931-2951.
  5. Keyon Vafa, Yuntian Deng, David Blei, and Alexan- der M Rush. 2021. Rationales for sequential predic- tions. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 10314-10332.
  6. Hongning Wang, Yue Lu, and Chengxiang Zhai. 2010. Latent aspect rating analysis on review text data: A rating regression approach. In ACM SIGKDD Inter- national Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD).
  7. Mo Yu, Shiyu Chang, Yang Zhang, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2019. Rethinking cooperative rationaliza- tion: Introspective extraction and complement con- trol. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4094-4103.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, H., He, J., Narasimhan, K., & Chen, D.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
Published
2022
Pages
3792-3805
OpenAlex
W4224950688
Cited by
31
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 1
FWCI
4.15
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
rationalization, robustness, adversarial examples, adversarial training, neural network robustness

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