mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Using Integrated Gradients and Constituency Parse Trees to explain Linguistic Acceptability learnt by BERT

arXiv 2106.07349 ↗First posted 1 Jun 2021cs.CLcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Linguistic Acceptability is the task of determining whether a sentence is grammatical or ungrammatical. It has applications in several use cases like Question-Answering, Natural Language Generation, Neural Machine Translation, where grammatical correctness is crucial. In this paper we aim to understand the decision-making process of BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) in distinguishing between Linguistically Acceptable sentences (LA) and Linguistically Unacceptable sentences (LUA). We leverage Layer Integrated Gradients Attribution Scores (LIG) to explain the Linguistic Acceptability criteria that are learnt by BERT on the Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability (CoLA) (Warstadt et al., 2018) benchmark dataset. Our experiments on 5 categories of sentences lead to the following interesting findings: 1) LIG for LA are significantly smaller in comparison to LUA, 2) There are specific subtrees of the Constituency Parse Tree (CPT) for LA and LUA which contribute larger LIG, 3) Across the different categories of sentences we observed around 88% to 100% of the Correctly classified sentences had positive LIG, indicating a strong positive relationship to the prediction confidence of the model, and 4) Around 43% of the Misclassified sentences had negative LIG, which we believe can become correctly classified sentences if the LIG are parameterized in the loss function of the model.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2021.

Builds on

21 of 27 references.

References · 21

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  3. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  4. 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,899
  5. 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,548
  6. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
  7. 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,458
  8. 2019What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attentioncited by 1,003
  9. 2018Neural Network Acceptability Judgmentscited by 958
  10. 2020A Primer in BERTology: What we know about how BERT workscited by 815
  11. 2020Captum: A unified and generic model interpretability library for PyTorchcited by 547
  12. 2019What do you learn from context? Probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representationscited by 438
9 more
  1. 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 354
  2. 2016Not Just a Black Box: Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 297
  3. 2018Targeted Syntactic Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 242
  4. 2016Layer-wise Relevance Propagation for Neural Networks with Local Renormalization Layerscited by 199
  5. 2019Open Sesame: Getting Inside BERT's Linguistic Knowledgecited by 120
  6. 2019Attention Interpretability Across NLP Taskscited by 71
  7. 2019Investigating BERT's Knowledge of Language: Five Analysis Methods with NPIscited by 58
  8. 2018Verb Argument Structure Alternations in Word and Sentence Embeddingscited by 25
  9. 2019Structural Supervision Improves Learning of Non-Local Grammatical Dependenciescited by 24

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 0; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

3 papers.