mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Fooling Explanations in Text Classifiers

arXiv 2206.03178 ↗First posted 7 Jun 2022cs.LG cs.CL cs.CRcited by 13

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

State-of-the-art text classification models are becoming increasingly reliant on deep neural networks (DNNs). Due to their black-box nature, faithful and robust explanation methods need to accompany classifiers for deployment in real-life scenarios. However, it has been shown in vision applications that explanation methods are susceptible to local, imperceptible perturbations that can significantly alter the explanations without changing the predicted classes. We show here that the existence of such perturbations extends to text classifiers as well. Specifically, we introduceTextExplanationFooler (TEF), a novel explanation attack algorithm that alters text input samples imperceptibly so that the outcome of widely-used explanation methods changes considerably while leaving classifier predictions unchanged. We evaluate the performance of the attribution robustness estimation performance in TEF on five sequence classification datasets, utilizing three DNN architectures and three transformer architectures for each dataset. TEF can significantly decrease the correlation between unchanged and perturbed input attributions, which shows that all models and explanation methods are susceptible to TEF perturbations. Moreover, we evaluate how the perturbations transfer to other model architectures and attribution methods, and show that TEF perturbations are also effective in scenarios where the target model and explanation method are unknown. Finally, we introduce a semi-universal attack that is able to compute fast, computationally light perturbations with no knowledge of the attacked classifier nor explanation method. Overall, our work shows that explanations in text classifiers are very fragile and users need to carefully address their robustness before relying on them in critical applications.

Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 41 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jun 2022.

Builds on

41 of 60 references.

References · 41

  1. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
  2. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  3. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
  4. 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,326
  5. 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,530
  6. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  7. 2016Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networkscited by 2,976
  8. 2019XLNet: Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understandingcited by 2,801
  9. 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
  10. 2015Character-level Convolutional Networks for Text Classificationcited by 2,293
  11. 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,278
  12. 2015DeepFool: a simple and accurate method to fool deep neural networkscited by 1,315
29 more
  1. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
  2. 2016Universal adversarial perturbationscited by 774
  3. 2019Attention is not not Explanationcited by 629
  4. 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
  5. 2020Captum: A unified and generic model interpretability library for PyTorchcited by 542
  6. 2020BERT-ATTACK: Adversarial Attack Against BERT Using BERTcited by 488
  7. 2018Universal Sentence Encodercited by 485
  8. 2017Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragilecited by 443
  9. 2019Is Attention Interpretable?cited by 387
  10. 2016RETAIN: An Interpretable Predictive Model for Healthcare using Reverse Time Attention Mechanismcited by 344
  11. 2017Parseval Networks: Improving Robustness to Adversarial Examplescited by 288
  12. 2019Explanations can be manipulated and geometry is to blamecited by 215
  13. 2018Robustness via curvature regularization, and vice versacited by 174
  14. 2018Pathologies of Neural Models Make Interpretations Difficultcited by 140
  15. 2016Counter-fitting Word Vectors to Linguistic Constraintscited by 138
  16. 2018SparseFool: a few pixels make a big differencecited by 94
  17. 2016Yelp Dataset Challenge: Review Rating Predictioncited by 84
  18. 2019On the Connection Between Adversarial Robustness and Saliency Map Interpretabilitycited by 80
  19. 2020Adv-BERT: BERT is not robust on misspellings! Generating nature adversarial samples on BERTcited by 69
  20. 2021On Guaranteed Optimal Robust Explanations for NLP Modelscited by 54
  21. 2019Robust Attribution Regularizationcited by 46
  22. 2018Greedy Attack and Gumbel Attack: Generating Adversarial Examples for Discrete Datacited by 37
  23. 2018Generating Counterfactual Explanations with Natural Languagecited by 37
  24. 2021Perturbing Inputs for Fragile Interpretations in Deep Natural Language Processingcited by 30
  25. 2018Interpreting Recurrent and Attention-Based Neural Models: a Case Study on Natural Language Inferencecited by 26
  26. 2020FAR: A General Framework for Attributional Robustnesscited by 13
  27. 2019Universal Adversarial Perturbation for Text Classificationcited by 8
  28. 2018Patient Risk Assessment and Warning Symptom Detection Using Deep Attention-Based Neural Networkscited by 7
  29. 2019Attributional Robustness Training using Input-Gradient Spatial Alignmentcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 3; 2023: 7; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

13 papers.

Sort: