Pith. sign in

REVIEW

The Irrationality of Neural Rationale 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 2110.07550 v2 pith:YCLL5DFV submitted 2021-10-14 cs.CL

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

Neural rationale models are popular for interpretable predictions of NLP tasks. In these, a selector extracts segments of the input text, called rationales, and passes these segments to a classifier for prediction. Since the rationale is the only information accessible to the classifier, it is plausibly defined as the explanation. Is such a characterization unconditionally correct? In this paper, we argue to the contrary, with both philosophical perspectives and empirical evidence suggesting that rationale models are, perhaps, less rational and interpretable than expected. We call for more rigorous and comprehensive evaluations of these models to ensure desired properties of interpretability are indeed achieved. The code can be found at https://github.com/yimingz89/Neural-Rationale-Analysis.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Pith tools