Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Attention is not not Explanation

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

arxiv 1908.04626 v2 pith:53SET5XX submitted 2019-08-13 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords attentionexplanationmechanismsmodelmodelsadversarialdiagnosticsimple
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Attention mechanisms play a central role in NLP systems, especially within recurrent neural network (RNN) models. Recently, there has been increasing interest in whether or not the intermediate representations offered by these modules may be used to explain the reasoning for a model's prediction, and consequently reach insights regarding the model's decision-making process. A recent paper claims that `Attention is not Explanation' (Jain and Wallace, 2019). We challenge many of the assumptions underlying this work, arguing that such a claim depends on one's definition of explanation, and that testing it needs to take into account all elements of the model, using a rigorous experimental design. We propose four alternative tests to determine when/whether attention can be used as explanation: a simple uniform-weights baseline; a variance calibration based on multiple random seed runs; a diagnostic framework using frozen weights from pretrained models; and an end-to-end adversarial attention training protocol. Each allows for meaningful interpretation of attention mechanisms in RNN models. We show that even when reliable adversarial distributions can be found, they don't perform well on the simple diagnostic, indicating that prior work does not disprove the usefulness of attention mechanisms for explainability.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation of Explainability in Media Bias Detection

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In media bias detection, explanation plausibility and mechanistic faithfulness are distinct axes that vary independently across model architectures and finetuning strategies.

  2. AgentWatcher: A Rule-based Prompt Injection Monitor

    cs.CR 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An attention-attribution plus rule-reasoning detector reduces prompt-injection success to near zero on agent and long-context benchmarks with small utility loss.

  3. Compute Can't Handle the Truth: Why Communication Tax Prioritizes Memory and Interconnects in Modern AI Infrastructure

    cs.DC 2025-07 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A CXL-based disaggregated memory architecture with hybrid XLink interconnects is proposed and prototyped, claiming large speedups for memory-bound AI and HPC workloads.

  4. SFT-GO: Supervised Fine-Tuning with Group Optimization for Large Language Models

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    SFT-GO retrains LLMs by focusing on the worst-performing group of important or unimportant tokens, yielding modest average benchmark improvements over standard supervised fine-tuning.

  5. Thinking About Thinking: SAGE-nano's Inverse Reasoning for Self-Aware Language Models

    cs.AI 2025-06 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A 4B-parameter model is claimed to explain its own reasoning through inverse attention analysis, but the paper offers no consistent evidence or artifacts.

Pith tools