A Framework for Rationale Extraction for Deep QA models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
As neural-network-based QA models become deeper and more complex, there is a demand for robust frameworks which can access a model's rationale for its prediction. Current techniques that provide insights on a model's working are either dependent on adversarial datasets or are proposing models with explicit explanation generation components. These techniques are time-consuming and challenging to extend to existing models and new datasets. In this work, we use `Integrated Gradients' to extract rationale for existing state-of-the-art models in the task of Reading Comprehension based Question Answering (RCQA). On detailed analysis and comparison with collected human rationales, we find that though ~40-80% words of extracted rationale coincide with the human rationale (precision), only 6-19% of human rationale is present in the extracted rationale (recall).
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2021.
Builds on
20 of 22 references.
References · 20
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
- 2017TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehensioncited by 2,895
- 2019ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language Representationscited by 2,772
- 2016MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Datasetcited by 1,591
- 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,454
- 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
- 2017RACE: Large-scale ReAding Comprehension Dataset From Examinationscited by 851
- 2017Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 568
8 more
- 2019Is Attention Interpretable?cited by 387
- 2016Rationalizing Neural Predictionscited by 281
- 2016Bidirectional Attention Flow for Machine Comprehensioncited by 278
- 2016Understanding Neural Networks through Representation Erasurecited by 223
- 2018QANet: Combining Local Convolution with Global Self-Attention for Reading Comprehensioncited by 164
- 2017Explaining Recurrent Neural Network Predictions in Sentiment Analysiscited by 87
- 2016Dynamic Coattention Networks For Question Answeringcited by 49
- 2019What does BERT Learn from Multiple-Choice Reading Comprehension Datasets?cited by 30
Built on by
Not cited yet.