Why is "Problems" Predictive of Positive Sentiment? A Case Study of Explaining Unintuitive Features in Sentiment Classification
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Explainable AI (XAI) algorithms aim to help users understand how a machine learning model makes predictions. To this end, many approaches explain which input features are most predictive of a target label. However, such explanations can still be puzzling to users (e.g., in product reviews, the word "problems" is predictive of positive sentiment). If left unexplained, puzzling explanations can have negative impacts. Explaining unintuitive associations between an input feature and a target label is an underexplored area in XAI research. We take an initial effort in this direction using unintuitive associations learned by sentiment classifiers as a case study. We propose approaches for (1) automatically detecting associations that can appear unintuitive to users and (2) generating explanations to help users understand why an unintuitive feature is predictive. Results from a crowdsourced study (N=300) found that our proposed approaches can effectively detect and explain predictive but unintuitive features in sentiment classification.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Jun 2024.
Builds on
23 of 55 references.
References · 23
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,874
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
- 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,714
- 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,454
- 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
- 2020Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient Descentcited by 565
- 2020Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performancecited by 396
- 2019Benchmarking Zero-shot Text Classification: Datasets, Evaluation and Entailment Approachcited by 299
- 2018Representer Point Selection for Explaining Deep Neural Networkscited by 187
11 more
- 2018On Human Predictions with Explanations and Predictions of Machine Learning Models: A Case Study on Deception Detectioncited by 159
- 2020Proxy Tasks and Subjective Measures Can Be Misleading in Evaluating Explainable AI Systemscited by 138
- 2019Human-Centered Tools for Coping with Imperfect Algorithms during Medical Decision-Makingcited by 109
- 2020Explaining Explanations: Axiomatic Feature Interactions for Deep Networkscited by 103
- 2020"Why is 'Chicago' deceptive?" Towards Building Model-Driven Tutorials for Humanscited by 86
- 2023Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanationscited by 73
- 2022Human Interpretation of Saliency-based Explanation Over Textcited by 25
- 2016Automatic Sarcasm Detection: A Surveycited by 21
- 2020Human Evaluation of Spoken vs. Visual Explanations for Open-Domain QAcited by 17
- 2018Can I trust you more? Model-Agnostic Hierarchical Explanationscited by 10
- 2022Beware the Rationalization Trap! When Language Model Explainability Diverges from our Mental Models of Languagecited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.