mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

REFER: An End-to-end Rationale Extraction Framework for Explanation Regularization

arXiv 2310.14418 ↗First posted 22 Oct 2023cs.CLcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Human-annotated textual explanations are becoming increasingly important in Explainable Natural Language Processing. Rationale extraction aims to provide faithful (i.e., reflective of the behavior of the model) and plausible (i.e., convincing to humans) explanations by highlighting the inputs that had the largest impact on the prediction without compromising the performance of the task model. In recent works, the focus of training rationale extractors was primarily on optimizing for plausibility using human highlights, while the task model was trained on jointly optimizing for task predictive accuracy and faithfulness. We propose REFER, a framework that employs a differentiable rationale extractor that allows to back-propagate through the rationale extraction process. We analyze the impact of using human highlights during training by jointly training the task model and the rationale extractor. In our experiments, REFER yields significantly better results in terms of faithfulness, plausibility, and downstream task accuracy on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution data. On both e-SNLI and CoS-E, our best setting produces better results in terms of composite normalized relative gain than the previous baselines by 11% and 3%, respectively.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 60 of its 75 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Oct 2023.

Builds on

60 of 75 references.

References · 60

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  3. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
  4. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  5. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  6. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  7. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  8. 2017A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inferencecited by 2,665
  9. 2015A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inferencecited by 1,837
  10. 2018CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledgecited by 1,793
  11. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  12. 2017SmoothGrad: removing noise by adding noisecited by 1,097
38 more
  1. 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 864
  2. 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 656
  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. 2019ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Modelscited by 523
  6. 2018Towards Robust Interpretability with Self-Explaining Neural Networkscited by 505
  7. 2018e-SNLI: Natural Language Inference with Natural Language Explanationscited by 468
  8. 2019Explain Yourself! Leveraging Language Models for Commonsense Reasoningcited by 367
  9. 2017Right for the Right Reasons: Training Differentiable Models by Constraining their Explanationscited by 293
  10. 2016Rationalizing Neural Predictionscited by 281
  11. 2019Analyzing the Structure of Attention in a Transformer Language Modelcited by 241
  12. 2018Stress Test Evaluation for Natural Language Inferencecited by 211
  13. 2018Multimodal Explanations: Justifying Decisions and Pointing to the Evidencecited by 179
  14. 2020Measuring Association Between Labels and Free-Text Rationalescited by 159
  15. 2016Generating Visual Explanationscited by 156
  16. 2020WT5?! Training Text-to-Text Models to Explain their Predictionscited by 148
  17. 2019Interpretations are useful: penalizing explanations to align neural networks with prior knowledgecited by 144
  18. 2018Pathologies of Neural Models Make Interpretations Difficultcited by 140
  19. 2020The elephant in the interpretability room: Why use attention as explanation when we have saliency methods?cited by 122
  20. 2019Learning to Deceive with Attention-Based Explanationscited by 111
  21. 2021Implicit MLE: Backpropagating Through Discrete Exponential Family Distributionscited by 97
  22. 2019Rethinking Cooperative Rationalization: Introspective Extraction and Complement Controlcited by 96
  23. 2020NILE : Natural Language Inference with Faithful Natural Language Explanationscited by 96
  24. 2020Evaluating Explanations: How much do explanations from the teacher aid students?cited by 94
  25. 2020Contextualizing Hate Speech Classifiers with Post-hoc Explanationcited by 84
  26. 2021e-ViL: A Dataset and Benchmark for Natural Language Explanations in Vision-Language Taskscited by 84
  27. 2021When Can Models Learn From Explanations? A Formal Framework for Understanding the Roles of Explanation Datacited by 75
  28. 2019Seeing Things from a Different Angle: Discovering Diverse Perspectives about Claimscited by 73
  29. 2020An Information Bottleneck Approach for Controlling Conciseness in Rationale Extractioncited by 69
  30. 2019Incorporating Priors with Feature Attribution on Text Classificationcited by 68
  31. 2021Improving Deep Learning Interpretability by Saliency Guided Trainingcited by 68
  32. 2019Inferring Which Medical Treatments Work from Reports of Clinical Trialscited by 63
  33. 2014Extraction of Salient Sentences from Labelled Documentscited by 50
  34. 2020Generating Plausible Counterfactual Explanations for Deep Transformers in Financial Text Classificationcited by 40
  35. 2016Rationale-Augmented Convolutional Neural Networks for Text Classificationcited by 39
  36. 2021Understanding Interlocking Dynamics of Cooperative Rationalizationcited by 36
  37. 2018Evaluating Compositionality in Sentence Embeddingscited by 35
  38. 2019Do Human Rationales Improve Machine Explanations?cited by 33

50 most cited of 60 All 60 (JSON)

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

4 papers.