CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 106Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Measuring Association Between Labels and Free-Text Rationales

Open access
Wiegreffe, Sarah, Marasović, Ana, Smith, Noah A.·2020·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2010.12762arXiv 2010.12762
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In interpretable NLP, we require faithful rationales that reflect the model's decision-making process for an explained instance. While prior work focuses on extractive rationales (a subset of the input words), we investigate their less-studied counterpart: free-text natural language rationales. We demonstrate that pipelines, existing models for faithful extractive rationalization on information-extraction style tasks, do not extend as reliably to "reasoning" tasks requiring free-text rationales. We turn to models that jointly predict and rationalize, a class of widely used high-performance models for free-text rationalization whose faithfulness is not yet established. We define label-rationale association as a necessary property for faithfulness: the internal mechanisms of the model producing the label and the rationale must be meaningfully correlated. We propose two measurements to test this property: robustness equivalence and feature importance agreement. We find that state-of-the-art T5-based joint models exhibit both properties for rationalizing commonsense question-answering and natural language inference, indicating their potential for producing faithful free-text rationales.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2010.12762

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Researchers increasingly draw on LLMs' own text generation capabilities to produce natural language explanations alongside predictions.

    “researchers increasingly draw on an LLMs' own text generation capabilities to produce natural language explanations (NLEs) alongside predictions [22,23]”

    From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [23]

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 75

  1. Jacob Andreas, Marcus Rohrbach, Trevor Darrell, and Dan Klein. 2016. Neural module networks. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).
  2. Pepa Atanasova, Jakob Grue Simonsen, Christina Li- oma, and Isabelle Augenstein. 2020. A diagnostic study of explainability techniques for text classifi- cation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 3256-3274, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  3. David Baehrens, Timon Schroeter, Stefan Harmeling, Motoaki Kawanabe, Katja Hansen, and Klaus-Robert Müller. 2010. How to explain individual classifica- tion decisions. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11:1803-1831.
  4. Jasmijn Bastings, Wilker Aziz, and Ivan Titov. 2019. Interpretable neural predictions with differentiable binary variables. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics, pages 2963-2977, Florence, Italy. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  5. Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large anno- tated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 632-642, Lisbon, Portugal. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Oana-Maria Camburu, Tim Rocktäschel, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Phil Blunsom. 2018. e-SNLI: Natu- ral language inference with natural language explana- tions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS).
  7. Arjun Chandrasekaran, Viraj Prabhu, Deshraj Yadav, Prithvijit Chattopadhyay, and Devi Parikh. 2018. Do explanations make VQA models more predictable to a human? In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1036-1042, Brussels, Belgium. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  8. Christopher Clark, Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, Tom Kwiatkowski, Michael Collins, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. BoolQ: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 2924-2936, Minneapolis, Min- nesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  9. Miruna-Adriana Clinciu, Arash Eshghi, and Helen Hastie. 2021. A study of automatic metrics for the evaluation of natural language explanations. In Pro- ceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: Main Volume, pages 2376-2387, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  10. Gianna M Del Corso, Antonio Gulli, and Francesco Ro- mani. 2005. Ranking a stream of news. In Proceed- ings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web. · DOI
  11. Jay DeYoung, Sarthak Jain, Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Eric Lehman, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Byron C. Wallace. 2020. ERASER: A benchmark to evaluate rationalized NLP models. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4443-4458, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Shuoyang Ding, Hainan Xu, and Philipp Koehn. 2019. Saliency-driven word alignment interpretation for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on Machine Translation (Volume 1: Research Papers), pages 1-12, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  13. Virginie Do, Oana-Maria Camburu, Zeynep Akata, and Thomas Lukasiewicz. 2020. e-SNLI-VE-2.0: Cor- rected visual-textual entailment with natural language explanations. In IEEE CVPR Workshop on Fair, Data Efficient and Trusted Computer Vision.
  14. Upol Ehsan, Brent Harrison, Larry Chan, and Mark O Riedl. 2018. Rationalization: A neural machine trans- lation approach to generating natural language ex- planations. In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. · DOI
  15. Amirata Ghorbani, Abubakar Abid, and James Zou. 2019. Interpretation of neural networks is fragile. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
  16. Braden Hancock, Paroma Varma, Stephanie Wang, Mar- tin Bringmann, Percy Liang, and Christopher Ré. 2018. Training classifiers with natural language ex- planations. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1884-1895, Mel- bourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  17. Peter Hase and Mohit Bansal. 2020. Evaluating explain- able AI: Which algorithmic explanations help users predict model behavior? In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5540-5552, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Peter Hase, Shiyue Zhang, Harry Xie, and Mohit Bansal. 2020. Leakage-adjusted simulatability: Can models generate non-trivial explanations of their behavior in natural language? In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 4351-4367, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Shilin He, Zhaopeng Tu, Xing Wang, Longyue Wang, Michael Lyu, and Shuming Shi. 2019. Towards un- derstanding neural machine translation with word im- portance. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natu- ral Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 953-962, Hong Kong, China. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI
  20. Lisa Anne Hendricks, Zeynep Akata, Marcus Rohrbach, Jeff Donahue, Bernt Schiele, and Trevor Darrell. 2016. Generating visual explanations. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV).
  21. Juyeon Heo, Sunghwan Joo, and Taesup Moon. 2019. Fooling neural network interpretations via adversarial model manipulation. In Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems (NeurIPS).
  22. Sara Hooker, Dumitru Erhan, Pieter-Jan Kindermans, and Been Kim. 2019. A benchmark for interpretabil- ity methods in deep neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS).
  23. Alon Jacovi and Yoav Goldberg. 2020. Towards faith- fully interpretable NLP systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness? In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4198-4205, On- line. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Sarthak Jain and Byron C. Wallace. 2019. Attention is not Explanation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Con- ference of the North American Chapter of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics: Human Lan- guage Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Pa- pers), pages 3543-3556, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  25. Sarthak Jain, Sarah Wiegreffe, Yuval Pinter, and By- ron C. Wallace. 2020. Learning to faithfully ratio- nalize by construction. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4459-4473, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  26. Yichen Jiang, Nitish Joshi, Yen-Chun Chen, and Mohit Bansal. 2019. Explore, propose, and assemble: An interpretable model for multi-hop reading compre- hension. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2714-2725, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  27. Daniel Khashabi, Snigdha Chaturvedi, Michael Roth, Shyam Upadhyay, and Dan Roth. 2018. Looking beyond the surface: A challenge set for reading com- prehension over multiple sentences. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Pa- pers), pages 252-262, New Orleans, Louisiana. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  28. Been Kim, Rajiv Khanna, and Oluwasanmi Koyejo. 2016. Examples are not enough, learn to criticize! criticism for interpretability. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 2288-2296. · DOI
  29. Jinkyu Kim, Anna Rohrbach, Trevor Darrell, John Canny, and Zeynep Akata. 2018. Textual explana- tions for self-driving vehicles. In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV).
  30. Pieter-Jan Kindermans, Sara Hooker, Julius Ade- bayo, Maximilian Alber, Kristof T. Schütt, Sven Dähne, Dumitru Erhan, and Been Kim. 2019. The (Un)reliability of Saliency Methods, pages 267-280. Springer International Publishing. · DOI
  31. Sawan Kumar and Partha Talukdar. 2020. NILE : Natu- ral language inference with faithful natural language explanations. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics, pages 8730-8742, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  32. Pooja Lakshmi Narayan, Ajay Nagesh, and Mihai Sur- deanu. 2019. Exploration of noise strategies in semi- supervised named entity classification. In Proceed- ings of the Eighth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*SEM 2019), pages 186- 191, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI
  33. Ken Lang. 1995. Newsweeder: Learning to filter net- news. In Machine Learning Proceedings 1995.
  34. Veronica Latcinnik and Jonathan Berant. 2020. Explain- ing question answering models through text genera- tion. arXiv:2004.05569. · arXiv
  35. Eric Lehman, Jay DeYoung, Regina Barzilay, and By- ron C. Wallace. 2019. Inferring which medical treat- ments work from reports of clinical trials. In Pro- ceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North Amer- ican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 3705-3717, Min- neapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  36. Tao Lei, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi Jaakkola. 2016. Rationalizing neural predictions. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Nat- ural Language Processing, pages 107-117, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Jierui Li, Lemao Liu, Huayang Li, Guanlin Li, Guoping Huang, and Shuming Shi. 2020. Evaluating expla- nation methods for neural machine translation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics, pages 365-375, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  38. Tal Linzen, Emmanuel Dupoux, and Yoav Goldberg. 2016. Assessing the ability of lstms to learn syntax- sensitive dependencies. Transactions of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics (TACL), 4:521- 535.
  39. Hui Liu, Qingyu Yin, and William Yang Wang. 2019a. Towards explainable NLP: A generative explanation framework for text classification. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, pages 5570-5581, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  40. Zihan Liu, Jamin Shin, Yan Xu, Genta Indra Winata, Peng Xu, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2019b. Zero-shot cross-lingual dialogue systems with trans- ferable latent variables. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1297-1303, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  41. Julian McAuley and Jure Leskovec. 2013. Hidden fac- tors and hidden topics: Understanding rating dimen- sions with review text. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Recommender systems. · DOI
  42. Julian McAuley, Jure Leskovec, and Dan Jurafsky. 2012. Learning attitudes and attributes from multi-aspect re- views. In 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Data Mining.
  43. Tom McCoy, Ellie Pavlick, and Tal Linzen. 2019. Right for the wrong reasons: Diagnosing syntactic heuris- tics in natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, pages 3428-3448, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  44. David Alvarez Melis and Tommi Jaakkola. 2018. To- wards robust interpretability with self-explaining neu- ral networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS).
  45. Sharan Narang, Colin Raffel, Katherine Lee, Adam Roberts, Noah Fiedel, and Karishma Malkan. 2020. WT5?! training text-to-text models to explain their predictions. arXiv:2004.14546. · arXiv
  46. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei- Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evalu- ation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  47. Bhargavi Paranjape, Mandar Joshi, John Thickstun, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. An information bottleneck approach for controlling conciseness in rationale extraction. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1938- 1952, Online. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. · DOI
  48. Forough Poursabzi-Sangdeh, Daniel G Goldstein, Jake M Hofman, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, and Hanna Wallach. 2021. Manipulating and measur- ing model interpretability. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI).
  49. Sameer S Pradhan, Eduard Hovy, Mitch Marcus, Martha Palmer, Lance Ramshaw, and Ralph Weischedel. 2007. Ontonotes: A unified relational semantic repre- sentation. In International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC). · DOI
  50. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Kather- ine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1-67.
  51. Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Explain your- self! leveraging language models for commonsense reasoning. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4932-4942, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  52. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Tongshuang Wu, Carlos Guestrin, and Sameer Singh. 2020. Beyond accuracy: Be- havioral testing of NLP models with CheckList. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, pages 4902- 4912, Online. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI · Paper page
  53. Hendrik Schuff, Heike Adel, and Ngoc Thang Vu. 2020. F1 is Not Enough! Models and Evaluation Towards User-Centered Explainable Question Answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 7076-7095, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
  54. Roy Schwartz, Sam Thomson, and Noah A. Smith. 2018. Bridging CNNs, RNNs, and weighted finite-state ma- chines. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol- ume 1: Long Papers), pages 295-305, Melbourne, Australia. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  55. Sofia Serrano and Noah A. Smith. 2019. Is attention in- terpretable? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2931-2951, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  56. Avanti Shrikumar, Peyton Greenside, and Anshul Kun- daje. 2017. Learning important features through propagating activation differences. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3145-3153.
  57. Karen Simonyan, Andrea Vedaldi, and Andrew Zis- serman. 2014. Deep inside convolutional networks: Visualising image classification models and saliency maps. In Workshop at International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR Workshop).
  58. Dylan Slack, Sophie Hilgard, Emily Jia, Sameer Singh, and Himabindu Lakkaraju. 2020. Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial attacks on post hoc explanation methods. In Proceedings of the 2020 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES). · DOI · Paper page
  59. Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  60. Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. 2019. CommonsenseQA: A ques- tion answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4149-4158, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  61. Zheng Tang, Gus Hahn-Powell, and Mihai Surdeanu. 2020. Exploring interpretability in event extraction: Multitask learning of a neural event classifier and an explanation decoder. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Workshop, pages 169- 175, Online. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. · DOI
  62. Ian Tenney, Dipanjan Das, and Ellie Pavlick. 2019. BERT rediscovers the classical NLP pipeline. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, pages 4593- 4601, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  63. James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2018. FEVER: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and VERification. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 809-819, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  64. Martin Tutek and Jan Snajder. 2020. Staying true to your word: (how) can attention become explanation? In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Represen- tation Learning for NLP, pages 131-142, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  65. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems (NeurIPS).
  66. Eric Wallace, Jens Tuyls, Junlin Wang, Sanjay Sub- ramanian, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2019. AllenNLP interpret: A framework for explaining predictions of NLP models. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP): System Demonstrations, pages 7-12, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  67. Dilin Wang, Chengyue Gong, and Qiang Liu. 2019. Improving neural language modeling via adversarial training. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML),.
  68. Sarah Wiegreffe and Ana Marasović. 2021. Teach me to explain: A review of datasets for explainable natural language processing. In Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems (NeurIPS) Datasets and Benchmarks.
  69. Sarah Wiegreffe and Yuval Pinter. 2019. Attention is not not explanation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro- cessing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 11-20, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  70. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pier- ric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtow- icz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander Rush. 2020. Trans- formers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  71. Jialin Wu and Raymond Mooney. 2019. Faithful mul- timodal explanation for visual question answering. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACL Workshop Black- boxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Net- works for NLP, pages 103-112, Florence, Italy. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  72. Arnold Yeung, Shalmali Joshi, Joseph Jay Williams, and Frank Rudzicz. 2020. Sequential explanations with mental model-based policies. In ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning.
  73. Omar Zaidan and Jason Eisner. 2008. Modeling an- notators: A generative approach to learning from annotator rationales. In Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing, pages 31-40, Honolulu, Hawaii. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  74. Xinyang Zhang, Ningfei Wang, Hua Shen, Shouling Ji, Xiapu Luo, and Ting Wang. 2020. Interpretable deep learning under fire. In 29th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security).
  75. Haizhong Zheng, Earlence Fernandes, and Atul Prakash. 2019. Analyzing the interpretability robustness of self-explaining models. In ICML 2019 Security and Privacy of Machine Learning Workshop.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wiegreffe, S., Marasović, A., & Smith, N. A.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Pages
10266-10284
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2010.12762
arXiv
2010.12762
OpenAlex
W3093530468
Cited by
106
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 18
FWCI
9.93
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
interpretability, commonsense question answering, natural language inference, T5

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