REVIEW 1 cited by
Interpretation Quality Score for Measuring the Quality of interpretability methods
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Machine learning (ML) models have been applied to a wide range of natural language processing (NLP) tasks in recent years. In addition to making accurate decisions, the necessity of understanding how models make their decisions has become apparent in many applications. To that end, many interpretability methods that help explain the decision processes of ML models have been developed. Yet, there currently exists no widely-accepted metric to evaluate the quality of explanations generated by these methods. As a result, there currently is no standard way of measuring to what degree an interpretability method achieves an intended objective. Moreover, there is no accepted standard of performance by which we can compare and rank the current existing interpretability methods. In this paper, we propose a novel metric for quantifying the quality of explanations generated by interpretability methods. We compute the metric on three NLP tasks using six interpretability methods and present our results.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Honey, I Shrunk the Language Model: Impact of Knowledge Distillation Methods on Performance and Explainability
A small language model distilled with a combination of multitask and counterfactual training on critique-revised explanations produced human-rated higher-quality explanations, while multitask training alone gave the b...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.