Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Fine-grained Sentiment Analysis with Faithful Attention

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 1908.06870 v1 pith:W4WDGMEL submitted 2019-08-19 cs.CL

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

While the general task of textual sentiment classification has been widely studied, much less research looks specifically at sentiment between a specified source and target. To tackle this problem, we experimented with a state-of-the-art relation extraction model. Surprisingly, we found that despite reasonable performance, the model's attention was often systematically misaligned with the words that contribute to sentiment. Thus, we directly trained the model's attention with human rationales and improved our model performance by a robust 4~8 points on all tasks we defined on our data sets. We also present a rigorous analysis of the model's attention, both trained and untrained, using novel and intuitive metrics. Our results show that untrained attention does not provide faithful explanations; however, trained attention with concisely annotated human rationales not only increases performance, but also brings faithful explanations. Encouragingly, a small amount of annotated human rationales suffice to correct the attention in our task.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Efficient Text-Attributed Graph Learning through Selective Annotation and Graph Alignment

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    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.

  2. Can human clinical rationales improve the performance and explainability of clinical text classification models?

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools