mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Explanation sensitivity to the randomness of large language models: the case of journalistic text classification

arXiv 2410.05085 ↗First posted 7 Oct 2024cs.CLcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) perform very well in several natural language processing tasks but raise explainability challenges. In this paper, we examine the effect of random elements in the training of LLMs on the explainability of their predictions. We do so on a task of opinionated journalistic text classification in French. Using a fine-tuned CamemBERT model and an explanation method based on relevance propagation, we find that training with different random seeds produces models with similar accuracy but variable explanations. We therefore claim that characterizing the explanations' statistical distribution is needed for the explainability of LLMs. We then explore a simpler model based on textual features which offers stable explanations but is less accurate. Hence, this simpler model corresponds to a different tradeoff between accuracy and explainability. We show that it can be improved by inserting features derived from CamemBERT's explanations. We finally discuss new research directions suggested by our results, in particular regarding the origin of the sensitivity observed in the training randomness.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 66 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2024.

Builds on

30 of 66 references.

References · 30

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  3. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  4. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  5. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  6. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  7. 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,201
  8. 2018Sanity Checks for Saliency Mapscited by 1,149
  9. 2019What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attentioncited by 994
  10. 2019Analyzing Multi-Head Self-Attention: Specialized Heads Do the Heavy Lifting, the Rest Can Be Prunedcited by 844
  11. 2020Quantifying Attention Flow in Transformerscited by 759
  12. 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 656
18 more
  1. 2020Transformer Interpretability Beyond Attention Visualizationcited by 620
  2. 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
  3. 2019Defending Against Neural Fake Newscited by 553
  4. 2019CamemBERT: a Tasty French Language Modelcited by 368
  5. 2019Revealing the Dark Secrets of BERTcited by 300
  6. 2019Visualizing and Measuring the Geometry of BERTcited by 215
  7. 2020A Survey of the State of Explainable AI for Natural Language Processingcited by 206
  8. 2015Visualizing and Understanding Neural Models in NLPcited by 199
  9. 2016Layer-wise Relevance Propagation for Neural Networks with Local Renormalization Layerscited by 197
  10. 2013Crowdsourcing a Word-Emotion Association Lexiconcited by 193
  11. 2019Full-Gradient Representation for Neural Network Visualizationcited by 189
  12. 2019FlauBERT: Unsupervised Language Model Pre-training for Frenchcited by 153
  13. 2022Towards Faithful Model Explanation in NLP: A Surveycited by 129
  14. 2017Explaining Recurrent Neural Network Predictions in Sentiment Analysiscited by 87
  15. 2017The Promise and Peril of Human Evaluation for Model Interpretabilitycited by 52
  16. 2022On the Explainability of Natural Language Processing Deep Modelscited by 37
  17. 2022ExSum: From Local Explanations to Model Understandingcited by 15
  18. 2022We need to talk about random seedscited by 12

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

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

3 papers.