Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Main Predicate and Their Arguments as Explanation Signals For Intent Classification

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 2502.01270 v1 pith:MASX2OXJ submitted 2025-02-03 cs.CL

Main Predicate and Their Arguments as Explanation Signals For Intent Classification

classification cs.CL
keywords classificationintentexplanationsignalsmainmodelsargumentsexplainability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Intent classification is crucial for conversational agents (chatbots), and deep learning models perform well in this area. However, little research has been done on the explainability of intent classification due to the absence of suitable benchmark data. Human annotation of explanation signals in text samples is time-consuming and costly. However, from inspection of data on intent classification, we see that, more often than not, the main verb denotes the action, and the direct object indicates the domain of conversation, serving as explanation signals for intent. This observation enables us to hypothesize that the main predicate in the text utterances, along with the arguments of the main predicate, can serve as explanation signals. Leveraging this, we introduce a new technique to automatically augment text samples from intent classification datasets with word-level explanations. We mark main predicates (primarily verbs) and their arguments (dependency relations) as explanation signals in benchmark intent classification datasets ATIS and SNIPS, creating a unique 21k-instance dataset for explainability. Further, we experiment with deep learning and language models. We observe that models that work well for classification do not perform well in explainability metrics like plausibility and faithfulness. We also observe that guiding models to focus on explanation signals from our dataset during training improves the plausibility Token F1 score by 3-4%, improving the model's reasoning.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.