mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Framework for Rationale Extraction for Deep QA models

arXiv 2110.04620 ↗First posted 9 Oct 2021cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

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

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  3. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  4. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
  5. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  6. 2017TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehensioncited by 2,895
  7. 2019ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language Representationscited by 2,772
  8. 2016MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Datasetcited by 1,591
  9. 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,454
  10. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
  11. 2017RACE: Large-scale ReAding Comprehension Dataset From Examinationscited by 851
  12. 2017Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 568
8 more
  1. 2019Is Attention Interpretable?cited by 387
  2. 2016Rationalizing Neural Predictionscited by 281
  3. 2016Bidirectional Attention Flow for Machine Comprehensioncited by 278
  4. 2016Understanding Neural Networks through Representation Erasurecited by 223
  5. 2018QANet: Combining Local Convolution with Global Self-Attention for Reading Comprehensioncited by 164
  6. 2017Explaining Recurrent Neural Network Predictions in Sentiment Analysiscited by 87
  7. 2016Dynamic Coattention Networks For Question Answeringcited by 49
  8. 2019What does BERT Learn from Multiple-Choice Reading Comprehension Datasets?cited by 30

Built on by

Not cited yet.