REVIEW 4 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
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/
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation of Explainability in Media Bias Detection
In media bias detection, explanation plausibility and mechanistic faithfulness are distinct axes that vary independently across model architectures and finetuning strategies.
-
Can human clinical rationales improve the performance and explainability of clinical text classification models?
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.
-
Position: Explainability Research Must Prioritize Foundations over Ad-hoc Methods
Explainable AI research should prioritize definitions, properties, evaluations, and actionability over new ad-hoc methods, on evidence from 617 papers and 34 practitioners.
-
The Science of Evaluating Foundation Models
A survey-and-checklist proposal that organizes LLM evaluation into an ABCD framework (Algorithm, Big Data, Computation, Domain Expertise) for context-aware, documented assessment.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.