mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Evaluating the Faithfulness of Importance Measures in NLP by Recursively Masking Allegedly Important Tokens and Retraining

arXiv 2110.08412 ↗First posted 15 Oct 2021cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 31

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

To explain NLP models a popular approach is to use importance measures, such as attention, which inform input tokens are important for making a prediction. However, an open question is how well these explanations accurately reflect a model's logic, a property called faithfulness. To answer this question, we propose Recursive ROAR, a new faithfulness metric. This works by recursively masking allegedly important tokens and then retraining the model. The principle is that this should result in worse model performance compared to masking random tokens. The result is a performance curve given a masking-ratio. Furthermore, we propose a summarizing metric using relative area-between-curves (RACU), which allows for easy comparison across papers, models, and tasks. We evaluate 4 different importance measures on 8 different datasets, using both LSTM-attention models and RoBERTa models. We find that the faithfulness of importance measures is both model-dependent and task-dependent. This conclusion contradicts previous evaluations in both computer vision and faithfulness of attention literature.

Key facts. Cited by 31 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 37 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Oct 2021.

Builds on

37 of 59 references.

References · 37

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  3. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  4. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  5. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  6. 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,530
  7. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  8. 2015A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inferencecited by 1,837
  9. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  10. 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,201
  11. 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
  12. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
25 more
  1. 2019On the Convergence of Adam and Beyondcited by 834
  2. 2020Quantifying Attention Flow in Transformerscited by 759
  3. 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 656
  4. 2019Attention is not not Explanationcited by 629
  5. 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
  6. 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 467
  7. 2015Evaluating the visualization of what a Deep Neural Network has learnedcited by 416
  8. 2019Is Attention Interpretable?cited by 387
  9. 2017The (Un)reliability of saliency methodscited by 331
  10. 2015Towards AI-Complete Question Answering: A Set of Prerequisite Toy Taskscited by 309
  11. 2018Analysis Methods in Neural Language Processing: A Surveycited by 276
  12. 2019Explainable Machine Learning in Deploymentcited by 210
  13. 2015Visualizing and Understanding Neural Models in NLPcited by 199
  14. 2020Evaluating Explainable AI: Which Algorithmic Explanations Help Users Predict Model Behavior?cited by 189
  15. 2020Debugging Tests for Model Explanationscited by 146
  16. 2020Ground Truth Evaluation of Neural Network Explanations with CLEVR-XAIcited by 125
  17. 2020The elephant in the interpretability room: Why use attention as explanation when we have saliency methods?cited by 122
  18. 2019Learning to Deceive with Attention-Based Explanationscited by 111
  19. 2019Jointly Learning to Align and Translate with Transformer Modelscited by 75
  20. 2019Attention Interpretability Across NLP Taskscited by 71
  21. 2018Did the Model Understand the Question?cited by 60
  22. 2021Is Sparse Attention more Interpretable?cited by 31
  23. 2019Human-grounded Evaluations of Explanation Methods for Text Classificationcited by 28
  24. 2020To what extent do human explanations of model behavior align with actual model behavior?cited by 18
  25. 2021On the Interaction of Belief Bias and Explanationscited by 13

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 9; 2023: 5; 2024: 7; 2025: 5; 2026: 4.

31 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2023Faithfulness Tests for Natural Language Explanationscited by 107
  2. 2024Are self-explanations from Large Language Models faithful?cited by 101
  3. 2023Inseq: An Interpretability Toolkit for Sequence Generation Modelscited by 78
  4. 2021"Will You Find These Shortcuts?" A Protocol for Evaluating the Faithfulness of Input Salience Methods for Text Classificationcited by 66
  5. 2022Measuring the Mixing of Contextual Information in the Transformercited by 63
  6. 2022MultiViz: Towards Visualizing and Understanding Multimodal Modelscited by 36
  7. 2022Human Interpretation of Saliency-based Explanation Over Textcited by 25
  8. 2022An Empirical Study on Explanations in Out-of-Domain Settingscited by 21
  9. 2024F-Fidelity: A Robust Framework for Faithfulness Evaluation of Explainable AIcited by 17
  10. 2022Machine Reading, Fast and Slow: When Do Models "Understand" Language?cited by 13
  11. 2025Learning to Attribute with Attentioncited by 11
  12. 2024Interpretability Needs a New Paradigmcited by 10
19 more
  1. 2022Assessing Out-of-Domain Language Model Performance from Few Examplescited by 6
  2. 2023Improving the Generation Quality of Watermarked Large Language Models via Word Importance Scoringcited by 6
  3. 2024JoPA:Explaining Large Language Model's Generation via Joint Prompt Attributioncited by 6
  4. 2022A Multilingual Perspective Towards the Evaluation of Attribution Methods in Natural Language Inferencecited by 5
  5. 2023Faithfulness Measurable Masked Language Modelscited by 5
  6. 2022When less is more: Simplifying inputs aids neural network understandingcited by 4
  7. 2025Noiser: Bounded Input Perturbations for Attributing Large Language Modelscited by 4
  8. 2024Investigating the Impact of Model Instability on Explanations and Uncertaintycited by 3
  9. 2025From Macro to Micro: Probing Dataset Diversity in Language Model Fine-Tuningcited by 3
  10. 2024From Critique to Clarity: A Pathway to Faithful and Personalized Code Explanations with Large Language Modelscited by 2
  11. 2025eC-Tab2Text: Aspect-Based Text Generation from e-Commerce Product Tablescited by 2
  12. 2023Robust Infidelity: When Faithfulness Measures on Masked Language Models Are Misleadingcited by 1
  13. 2024Evaluating Saliency Explanations in NLP by Crowdsourcingcited by 1
  14. 2022Easy to Decide, Hard to Agree: Reducing Disagreements Between Saliency Methodscited by 0
  15. 2025φ-Table: A Statistical Explanation for Global SHAPcited by 0
  16. 2026Evaluating Explainable AI Attribution Methods in Neural Machine Translation via Attention-Guided Knowledge Distillationcited by 0
  17. 2026What LLMs explain is not what they believe: Evaluating explanation sufficiency under models' own input beliefscited by 0
  18. 2026ReCal3R: Reliability-Calibrated Learning Rates for Streaming 3D Reconstructioncited by 0
  19. 2026Translation as a Decision Space: A Multi-Agent Perspective on Low-Resource Dialect Generationcited by 0