Aligning Attention with Human Rationales for Self-Explaining Hate Speech Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The opaque nature of deep learning models presents significant challenges for the ethical deployment of hate speech detection systems. To address this limitation, we introduce Supervised Rational Attention (SRA), a framework that explicitly aligns model attention with human rationales, improving both interpretability and fairness in hate speech classification. SRA integrates a supervised attention mechanism into transformer-based classifiers, optimizing a joint objective that combines standard classification loss with an alignment loss term that minimizes the discrepancy between attention weights and human-annotated rationales. We evaluated SRA on hate speech benchmarks in English (HateXplain) and Portuguese (HateBRXplain) with rationale annotations. Empirically, SRA achieves 2.4x better explainability compared to current baselines, and produces token-level explanations that are more faithful and human-aligned. In terms of fairness, SRA achieves competitive fairness across all measures, with second-best performance in detecting toxic posts targeting identity groups, while maintaining comparable results on other metrics. These findings demonstrate that incorporating human rationales into attention mechanisms can enhance interpretability and faithfulness without compromising fairness.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Nov 2025.
Builds on
18 of 31 references.
References · 18
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2018A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Modelscited by 973
- 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 901
- 2017Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Languagecited by 736
- 2020HateXplain: A Benchmark Dataset for Explainable Hate Speech Detectioncited by 407
- 2019Nuanced Metrics for Measuring Unintended Bias with Real Data for Text Classificationcited by 404
- 2019Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Languagecited by 380
- 2016Rationalizing Neural Predictionscited by 281
- 2021Latent Hatred: A Benchmark for Understanding Implicit Hate Speechcited by 217
- 2019Racial Bias in Hate Speech and Abusive Language Detection Datasetscited by 209
- 2016Attention-Based Recurrent Neural Network Models for Joint Intent Detection and Slot Fillingcited by 137
- 2020Learning to Faithfully Rationalize by Constructioncited by 113
6 more
- 2019Inferring Which Medical Treatments Work from Reports of Clinical Trialscited by 64
- 2019Do Human Rationales Improve Machine Explanations?cited by 33
- 2023HARE: Explainable Hate Speech Detection with Step-by-Step Reasoningcited by 31
- 2024Towards Interpretable Hate Speech Detection using Large Language Model-extracted Rationalescited by 16
- 2024Multilingual and Explainable Text Detoxification with Parallel Corporacited by 12
- 2023IFAN: An Explainability-Focused Interaction Framework for Humans and NLP Modelscited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.