mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

ShufText: A Simple Black Box Approach to Evaluate the Fragility of Text Classification Models

arXiv 2102.00238 ↗First posted 30 Jan 2021cs.CL cs.LGcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Text classification is the most basic natural language processing task. It has a wide range of applications ranging from sentiment analysis to topic classification. Recently, deep learning approaches based on CNN, LSTM, and Transformers have been the de facto approach for text classification. In this work, we highlight a common issue associated with these approaches. We show that these systems are over-reliant on the important words present in the text that are useful for classification. With limited training data and discriminative training strategy, these approaches tend to ignore the semantic meaning of the sentence and rather just focus on keywords or important n-grams. We propose a simple black box technique ShutText to present the shortcomings of the model and identify the over-reliance of the model on keywords. This involves randomly shuffling the words in a sentence and evaluating the classification accuracy. We see that on common text classification datasets there is very little effect of shuffling and with high probability these models predict the original class. We also evaluate the effect of language model pretraining on these models and try to answer questions around model robustness to out of domain sentences. We show that simple models based on CNN or LSTM as well as complex models like BERT are questionable in terms of their syntactic and semantic understanding.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jan 2021.

Builds on

20 of 33 references.

References · 20

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  3. 2014Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classificationcited by 1,124
  4. 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
  5. 2014Deep Neural Networks are Easily Fooled: High Confidence Predictions for Unrecognizable Imagescited by 774
  6. 2019ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Modelscited by 523
  7. 2018What you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic propertiescited by 452
  8. 2018Black-box Generation of Adversarial Text Sequences to Evade Deep Learning Classifierscited by 341
  9. 2016Understanding Neural Networks through Representation Erasurecited by 223
  10. 2019Text Classification Algorithms: A Surveycited by 163
  11. 2018Pathologies of Neural Models Make Interpretations Difficultcited by 140
  12. 2016Attention-Based Recurrent Neural Network Models for Joint Intent Detection and Slot Fillingcited by 137
8 more
  1. 2017Deep Text Classification Can be Fooledcited by 105
  2. 2019AllenNLP Interpret: A Framework for Explaining Predictions of NLP Modelscited by 74
  3. 2015A C-LSTM Neural Network for Text Classificationcited by 54
  4. 2018Universal Language Model Fine-tuning for Text Classificationcited by 50
  5. 2018Understanding Convolutional Neural Networks for Text Classificationcited by 36
  6. 2020Deep Learning for Hindi Text Classification: A Comparisoncited by 22
  7. 2021Experimental Evaluation of Deep Learning models for Marathi Text Classificationcited by 19
  8. 2020Benchmarking Popular Classification Models' Robustness to Random and Targeted Corruptionscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 1; 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 1.

5 papers.