Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Models

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 1911.03429 v2 pith:HSISOVJ3 submitted 2019-11-08 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords rationalesbenchmarkmodelsinterpretablebeendatasetsdeepdesigning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

State-of-the-art models in NLP are now predominantly based on deep neural networks that are opaque in terms of how they come to make predictions. This limitation has increased interest in designing more interpretable deep models for NLP that reveal the `reasoning' behind model outputs. But work in this direction has been conducted on different datasets and tasks with correspondingly unique aims and metrics; this makes it difficult to track progress. We propose the Evaluating Rationales And Simple English Reasoning (ERASER) benchmark to advance research on interpretable models in NLP. This benchmark comprises multiple datasets and tasks for which human annotations of "rationales" (supporting evidence) have been collected. We propose several metrics that aim to capture how well the rationales provided by models align with human rationales, and also how faithful these rationales are (i.e., the degree to which provided rationales influenced the corresponding predictions). Our hope is that releasing this benchmark facilitates progress on designing more interpretable NLP systems. The benchmark, code, and documentation are available at https://www.eraserbenchmark.com/

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 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. 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.

  3. Position: Explainability Research Must Prioritize Foundations over Ad-hoc Methods

    cs.LG 2026-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Explainable AI research should prioritize definitions, properties, evaluations, and actionability over new ad-hoc methods, on evidence from 617 papers and 34 practitioners.

Pith tools