Extractive Explanations for Interpretable Text Ranking
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Neural document ranking models perform impressively well due to superior language understanding gained from pre-training tasks. However, due to their complexity and large number of parameters, these (typically transformer-based) models are often non-interpretable in that ranking decisions can not be clearly attributed to specific parts of the input documents. In this paper we propose ranking models that are inherently interpretable by generating explanations as a by-product of the prediction decision. We introduce the Select-and-Rank paradigm for document ranking, where we first output an explanation as a selected subset of sentences in a document. Thereafter, we solely use the explanation or selection to make the prediction, making explanations first-class citizens in the ranking process. Technically, we treat sentence selection as a latent variable trained jointly with the ranker from the final output. To that end, we propose an end-to-end training technique for Select-and-Rank models utilizing reparameterizable subset sampling using the Gumbel-max trick. We conduct extensive experiments to demonstrate that our approach is competitive to state-of-the-art methods. Our approach is broadly applicable to numerous ranking tasks and furthers the goal of building models that are interpretable by design. Finally, we present real-world applications that benefit from our sentence selection method.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 23 Jun 2021.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 3; 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.
9 papers.
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey on Self-Interpretable Neural Networkscited by 18
- 2023Context Aware Query Rewriting for Text Rankers using LLMcited by 14
- 2023Query Understanding in the Age of Large Language Modelscited by 7
- 2023Explaining Search Result Stances to Opinionated Peoplecited by 1
- 2025Can LLMs extract human-like fine-grained evidence for evidence-based fact-checking?cited by 1
- 2022Explainability of Text Processing and Retrieval Methods: A Surveycited by 0
- 2024The Surprising Effectiveness of Rankers Trained on Expanded Queriescited by 0
- 2025CREST: Improving Interpretability and Effectiveness of Troubleshooting at Ericsson through Criterion-Specific Trouble Report Retrievalcited by 0
- 2026The Laws of Context Allocation: Causal Measurement and Closed-Loop Orchestration in Generative Searchcited by 0
- 2026The Laws of Context Allocation: Causal Measurement and Closed-Loop Orchestration in Generative Search24 Aug 2026
- 2025Can LLMs extract human-like fine-grained evidence for evidence-based fact-checking?26 Nov 2025
- 2025CREST: Improving Interpretability and Effectiveness of Troubleshooting at Ericsson through Criterion-Specific Trouble Report Retrieval21 Nov 2025
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey on Self-Interpretable Neural Networks26 Jan 2025
- 2024The Surprising Effectiveness of Rankers Trained on Expanded Queries3 Apr 2024
- 2023Explaining Search Result Stances to Opinionated People15 Sep 2023
- 2023Context Aware Query Rewriting for Text Rankers using LLM31 Aug 2023
- 2023Query Understanding in the Age of Large Language Models28 Jun 2023
- 2022Explainability of Text Processing and Retrieval Methods: A Survey14 Dec 2022