Rationalization for Explainable NLP: A Survey
Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:YH6TOLJWrecord.jsonopen to challenge →
read the original abstract
Recent advances in deep learning have improved the performance of many Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks such as translation, question-answering, and text classification. However, this improvement comes at the expense of model explainability. Black-box models make it difficult to understand the internals of a system and the process it takes to arrive at an output. Numerical (LIME, Shapley) and visualization (saliency heatmap) explainability techniques are helpful; however, they are insufficient because they require specialized knowledge. These factors led rationalization to emerge as a more accessible explainable technique in NLP. Rationalization justifies a model's output by providing a natural language explanation (rationale). Recent improvements in natural language generation have made rationalization an attractive technique because it is intuitive, human-comprehensible, and accessible to non-technical users. Since rationalization is a relatively new field, it is disorganized. As the first survey, rationalization literature in NLP from 2007-2022 is analyzed. This survey presents available methods, explainable evaluations, code, and datasets used across various NLP tasks that use rationalization. Further, a new subfield in Explainable AI (XAI), namely, Rational AI (RAI), is introduced to advance the current state of rationalization. A discussion on observed insights, challenges, and future directions is provided to point to promising research opportunities.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The Compressive Knowledge Graph Hypothesis: Which Graph Facts Matter for Scientific Hypothesis Generation?
Empirical perturbations of local KGs across three LLMs reveal that compact top-k and other subsets often recover most of the hypothesis-generation signal, supporting a compressive KG hypothesis.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.