REVIEW 2 cited by
Is Sparse Attention more Interpretable?
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
Sparse attention has been claimed to increase model interpretability under the assumption that it highlights influential inputs. Yet the attention distribution is typically over representations internal to the model rather than the inputs themselves, suggesting this assumption may not have merit. We build on the recent work exploring the interpretability of attention; we design a set of experiments to help us understand how sparsity affects our ability to use attention as an explainability tool. On three text classification tasks, we verify that only a weak relationship between inputs and co-indexed intermediate representations exists -- under sparse attention and otherwise. Further, we do not find any plausible mappings from sparse attention distributions to a sparse set of influential inputs through other avenues. Rather, we observe in this setting that inducing sparsity may make it less plausible that attention can be used as a tool for understanding model behavior.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Membership Inference Attack against Long-Context Large Language Models
Long-context language models leak membership of documents in their input context, detectable via snippet-based generation loss and semantic similarity attacks.
-
New Faithfulness-Centric Interpretability Paradigms for Natural Language Processing
The thesis shows that randomly masking input tokens during fine-tuning makes post-hoc explanations of NLP models consistently faithful under an erasure-based faithfulness metric.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.