Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Explaining Language Models' Predictions with High-Impact Concepts

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 2305.02160 v1 pith:54MYLJ7M submitted 2023-05-03 cs.CL

Explaining Language Models' Predictions with High-Impact Concepts

classification cs.CL
keywords modelpredictionsexplanationsconceptsfeaturesimpactinterpretabilitylanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The emergence of large-scale pretrained language models has posed unprecedented challenges in deriving explanations of why the model has made some predictions. Stemmed from the compositional nature of languages, spurious correlations have further undermined the trustworthiness of NLP systems, leading to unreliable model explanations that are merely correlated with the output predictions. To encourage fairness and transparency, there exists an urgent demand for reliable explanations that allow users to consistently understand the model's behavior. In this work, we propose a complete framework for extending concept-based interpretability methods to NLP. Specifically, we propose a post-hoc interpretability method for extracting predictive high-level features (concepts) from the pretrained model's hidden layer activations. We optimize for features whose existence causes the output predictions to change substantially, \ie generates a high impact. Moreover, we devise several evaluation metrics that can be universally applied. Extensive experiments on real and synthetic tasks demonstrate that our method achieves superior results on {predictive impact}, usability, and faithfulness compared to the baselines.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. When Benchmarks Lie: Evaluating Malicious Prompt Classifiers Under True Distribution Shift

    cs.LG 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    Standard train/test evaluation overstates prompt-attack classifier generalization by 8+ AUC points; leave-one-dataset-out reveals dataset shortcuts that CV hides.