mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

CAVE: Controllable Authorship Verification Explanations

arXiv 2406.16672 ↗First posted 24 Jun 2024cs.CL cs.AIcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Authorship Verification (AV) (do two documents have the same author?) is essential in many real-life applications. AV is often used in privacy-sensitive domains that require an offline proprietary model that is deployed on premises, making publicly served online models (APIs) a suboptimal choice. Current offline AV models however have lower downstream utility due to limited accuracy (eg: traditional stylometry AV systems) and lack of accessible post-hoc explanations. In this work, we address the above challenges by developing a trained, offline model CAVE (Controllable Authorship Verification Explanations). CAVE generates free-text AV explanations that are controlled to be (1) accessible (uniform structure that can be decomposed into sub-explanations grounded to relevant linguistic features), and (2) easily verified for explanation-label consistency. We generate silver-standard training data grounded to the desirable linguistic features by a prompt-based method Prompt-CAVE. We then filter the data based on rationale-label consistency using a novel metric Cons-R-L. Finally, we fine-tune a small, offline model (Llama-3-8B) with this data to create our model CAVE. Results on three difficult AV datasets show that CAVE generates high quality explanations (as measured by automatic and human evaluation) as well as competitive task accuracy.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 41 of its 81 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jun 2024.

Builds on

41 of 81 references.

References · 41

  1. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
  2. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
  3. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  4. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  5. 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,323
  6. 2019Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning for NLPcited by 4,195
  7. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,598
  8. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  9. 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 951
  10. 2023Distilling Step-by-Step! Outperforming Larger Language Models with Less Training Data and Smaller Model Sizescited by 710
  11. 2019Attention is not not Explanationcited by 629
  12. 2018e-SNLI: Natural Language Inference with Natural Language Explanationscited by 468
29 more
  1. 2023Trusting Your Evidence: Hallucinate Less with Context-aware Decodingcited by 319
  2. 2016Rationalizing Neural Predictionscited by 281
  3. 2021Symbolic Knowledge Distillation: from General Language Models to Commonsense Modelscited by 270
  4. 2023From Pretraining Data to Language Models to Downstream Tasks: Tracking the Trails of Political Biases Leading to Unfair NLP Modelscited by 257
  5. 2022Quark: Controllable Text Generation with Reinforced Unlearningcited by 236
  6. 2022Making Large Language Models Better Reasoners with Step-Aware Verifiercited by 231
  7. 2016Understanding Neural Networks through Representation Erasurecited by 223
  8. 2020Measuring Association Between Labels and Free-Text Rationalescited by 159
  9. 2022Maieutic Prompting: Logically Consistent Reasoning with Recursive Explanationscited by 159
  10. 2020WT5?! Training Text-to-Text Models to Explain their Predictionscited by 148
  11. 2023Symbolic Chain-of-Thought Distillation: Small Models Can Also "Think" Step-by-Stepcited by 144
  12. 2022Explanations from Large Language Models Make Small Reasoners Bettercited by 123
  13. 2023SCOTT: Self-Consistent Chain-of-Thought Distillationcited by 103
  14. 2020Leakage-Adjusted Simulatability: Can Models Generate Non-Trivial Explanations of Their Behavior in Natural Language?cited by 95
  15. 2020Evaluating Explanations: How much do explanations from the teacher aid students?cited by 94
  16. 2022Same Author or Just Same Topic? Towards Content-Independent Style Representationscited by 83
  17. 2022Mitigating Gender Bias in Distilled Language Models via Counterfactual Role Reversalcited by 40
  18. 2024Can Large Language Models Identify Authorship?cited by 40
  19. 2016Representation of linguistic form and function in recurrent neural networkscited by 39
  20. 2023Are Machine Rationales (Not) Useful to Humans? Measuring and Improving Human Utility of Free-Text Rationalescited by 37
  21. 2019Explainable Authorship Verification in Social Media via Attention-based Similarity Learningcited by 36
  22. 2021UNIREX: A Unified Learning Framework for Language Model Rationale Extractioncited by 32
  23. 2023Learning Interpretable Style Embeddings via Prompting LLMscited by 29
  24. 2019Towards Hierarchical Importance Attribution: Explaining Compositional Semantics for Neural Sequence Modelscited by 26
  25. 2023Tailoring Self-Rationalizers with Multi-Reward Distillationcited by 21
  26. 2023Who Wrote it and Why? Prompting Large-Language Models for Authorship Verificationcited by 19
  27. 2023Decoupled Rationalization with Asymmetric Learning Rates: A Flexible Lipschitz Restraintcited by 14
  28. 2022Low-Resource Authorship Style Transfer: Can Non-Famous Authors Be Imitated?cited by 9
  29. 2023ZARA: Improving Few-Shot Self-Rationalization for Small Language Modelscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3.

3 papers.