REVIEW 2 cited by
Do Human Rationales Improve Machine Explanations?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Work on "learning with rationales" shows that humans providing explanations to a machine learning system can improve the system's predictive accuracy. However, this work has not been connected to work in "explainable AI" which concerns machines explaining their reasoning to humans. In this work, we show that learning with rationales can also improve the quality of the machine's explanations as evaluated by human judges. Specifically, we present experiments showing that, for CNN- based text classification, explanations generated using "supervised attention" are judged superior to explanations generated using normal unsupervised attention.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Efficient Text-Attributed Graph Learning through Selective Annotation and Graph Alignment
GAGA matches or exceeds state-of-the-art accuracy on several text-attributed graph benchmarks while requiring large language model annotations for only 1% of nodes or edges.
-
Can human clinical rationales improve the performance and explainability of clinical text classification models?
Adding 96,679 human rationale highlights improves cancer-site classification less than adding the same number of full pathology reports, and the explainability gain is small.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.