mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Attention vs non-attention for a Shapley-based explanation method

arXiv 2104.12424 ↗First posted 26 Apr 2021cs.CLcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The field of explainable AI has recently seen an explosion in the number of explanation methods for highly non-linear deep neural networks. The extent to which such methods -- that are often proposed and tested in the domain of computer vision -- are appropriate to address the explainability challenges in NLP is yet relatively unexplored. In this work, we consider Contextual Decomposition (CD) -- a Shapley-based input feature attribution method that has been shown to work well for recurrent NLP models -- and we test the extent to which it is useful for models that contain attention operations. To this end, we extend CD to cover the operations necessary for attention-based models. We then compare how long distance subject-verb relationships are processed by models with and without attention, considering a number of different syntactic structures in two different languages: English and Dutch. Our experiments confirm that CD can successfully be applied for attention-based models as well, providing an alternative Shapley-based attribution method for modern neural networks. In particular, using CD, we show that the English and Dutch models demonstrate similar processing behaviour, but that under the hood there are consistent differences between our attention and non-attention models.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Apr 2021.

Builds on

26 of 35 references.

References · 26

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  3. 2016Layer Normalizationcited by 5,579
  4. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  5. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  6. 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 2,992
  7. 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
  8. 2019BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipelinecited by 1,046
  9. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
  10. 2019Are Sixteen Heads Really Better than One?cited by 803
  11. 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 350
  12. 2019What BERT is not: Lessons from a new suite of psycholinguistic diagnostics for language modelscited by 317
14 more
  1. 2018Colorless green recurrent networks dream hierarchicallycited by 210
  2. 2019Assessing BERT's Syntactic Abilitiescited by 191
  3. 2018Under the Hood: Using Diagnostic Classifiers to Investigate and Improve how Language Models Track Agreement Informationcited by 97
  4. 2019The emergence of number and syntax units in LSTM language modelscited by 92
  5. 2016Tying Word Vectors and Word Classifiers: A Loss Framework for Language Modelingcited by 87
  6. 2016Improving Neural Language Models with a Continuous Cachecited by 81
  7. 2018Beyond Word Importance: Contextual Decomposition to Extract Interactions from LSTMscited by 67
  8. 2018Do Language Models Understand Anything? On the Ability of LSTMs to Understand Negative Polarity Itemscited by 36
  9. 2019Single Headed Attention RNN: Stop Thinking With Your Headcited by 25
  10. 2019Analysing Neural Language Models: Contextual Decomposition Reveals Default Reasoning in Number and Gender Assignmentcited by 20
  11. 2020LSTMs Compose (and Learn) Bottom-Upcited by 11
  12. 2020diagNNose: A Library for Neural Activation Analysiscited by 7
  13. 2021The Rediscovery Hypothesis: Language Models Need to Meet Linguisticscited by 7
  14. 2020Attribution Analysis of Grammatical Dependencies in LSTMscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year

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

3 papers.