Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

On the Diversity and Limits of Human Explanations

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 2106.11988 v2 pith:WA5G2VVI submitted 2021-06-22 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CY

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CY
keywords explanationshumandifferentdiversityimplicationsprocedurepsychologyquestions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

A growing effort in NLP aims to build datasets of human explanations. However, the term explanation encompasses a broad range of notions, each with different properties and ramifications. Our goal is to provide an overview of diverse types of explanations and human limitations, and discuss implications for collecting and using explanations in NLP. Inspired by prior work in psychology and cognitive sciences, we group existing human explanations in NLP into three categories: proximal mechanism, evidence, and procedure. These three types differ in nature and have implications for the resultant explanations. For instance, procedure is not considered explanations in psychology and connects with a rich body of work on learning from instructions. The diversity of explanations is further evidenced by proxy questions that are needed for annotators to interpret and answer open-ended why questions. Finally, explanations may require different, often deeper, understandings than predictions, which casts doubt on whether humans can provide useful explanations in some tasks.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Prompting as Scientific Inquiry

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Position paper arguing that prompting LLMs is a form of behavioral science and should be recognized as a core scientific method alongside mechanistic interpretability.

Pith tools