mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

DuTrust: A Sentiment Analysis Dataset for Trustworthiness Evaluation

arXiv 2108.13140 ↗First posted 30 Aug 2021cs.CL cs.AIcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

While deep learning models have greatly improved the performance of most artificial intelligence tasks, they are often criticized to be untrustworthy due to the black-box problem. Consequently, many works have been proposed to study the trustworthiness of deep learning. However, as most open datasets are designed for evaluating the accuracy of model outputs, there is still a lack of appropriate datasets for evaluating the inner workings of neural networks. The lack of datasets obviously hinders the development of trustworthiness research. Therefore, in order to systematically evaluate the factors for building trustworthy systems, we propose a novel and well-annotated sentiment analysis dataset to evaluate robustness and interpretability. To evaluate these factors, our dataset contains diverse annotations about the challenging distribution of instances, manual adversarial instances and sentiment explanations. Several evaluation metrics are further proposed for interpretability and robustness. Based on the dataset and metrics, we conduct comprehensive comparisons for the trustworthiness of three typical models, and also study the relations between accuracy, robustness and interpretability. We release this trustworthiness evaluation dataset at urlhttps://github/xyz and hope our work can facilitate the progress on building more trustworthy systems for real-world applications.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Aug 2021.

Builds on

26 of 33 references.

References · 26

  1. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  2. 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,530
  3. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  4. 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
  5. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  6. 2017A Survey on Deep Learning in Medical Image Analysiscited by 1,182
  7. 2017SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noisecited by 1,097
  8. 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
  9. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
  10. 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 864
  11. 2019Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understandingcited by 798
  12. 2019Attention is not not Explanationcited by 629
14 more
  1. 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
  2. 2019ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Modelscited by 523
  3. 2018Generating Natural Language Adversarial Examplescited by 422
  4. 2019ERNIE: Enhanced Representation through Knowledge Integrationcited by 301
  5. 2020A Survey on Neural Network Interpretabilitycited by 291
  6. 2016Rationalizing Neural Predictionscited by 281
  7. 2018Analysis Methods in Neural Language Processing: A Surveycited by 276
  8. 2018Breaking NLI Systems with Sentences that Require Simple Lexical Inferencescited by 134
  9. 2020Learning to Faithfully Rationalize by Constructioncited by 113
  10. 2019Learning to Deceive with Attention-Based Explanationscited by 111
  11. 2020SKEP: Sentiment Knowledge Enhanced Pre-training for Sentiment Analysiscited by 54
  12. 2017The Promise and Peril of Human Evaluation for Model Interpretabilitycited by 52
  13. 2021Evaluating Saliency Methods for Neural Language Modelscited by 37
  14. 2017Towards Linguistically Generalizable NLP Systems: A Workshop and Shared Taskcited by 24

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 3; 2023: 0; 2024: 1; 2025: 1.

5 papers.