mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Interpretable Discriminative Text Representations via Agreement and Label Disentanglement

arXiv 2605.20693 ↗First posted 20 May 2026cs.CL cs.AI stat.MLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Interpretable text representations should expose coordinates that are not only predictive, but also meaningful enough for independent auditors to apply. Existing discriminative representations often use anonymous embedding directions, while concept-bottleneck and LLM-assisted methods attach natural-language names to features without ensuring that those definitions are reproducible or distinct from the target label. We propose an operational criterion for interpretable discriminative text representations: each coordinate should satisfy conceptual clarity, measured by chance-adjusted agreement between independent annotators applying the feature definition, and label disentanglement, meaning the feature should not merely paraphrase the prediction target. We instantiate this criterion in LLM-assisted Feature Discovery (LFD), an iterative method that proposes lexical and semantic features from contrastive outcome-opposed text pairs, screens candidates using cross-LLM Cohen's kappa, and selects features by residual held-out predictive gain. A stylized analysis connects the kappa screen to a per-feature annotation-noise bound, formalizing agreement as a reliability check. Across ten text-classification tasks spanning seven corpora, LFD matches the predictive performance of a strong text bottleneck baseline while producing substantially clearer and less label-entangled features. Human audits with 232 raters show that LFD features achieve higher human--human and human--LLM agreement than baseline concepts, and raters consistently judge them as less label-leaking. These results suggest that agreement-tested, label-disentangled coordinates provide a practical auditability standard for interpretable text classification.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 May 2026.

Builds on

21 of 37 references.

References · 21

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2015Character-level Convolutional Networks for Text Classificationcited by 2,293
  3. 2022Editing Models with Task Arithmeticcited by 1,076
  4. 2020Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 1,022
  5. 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 849
  6. 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 831
  7. 2022BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedurecited by 779
  8. 2023The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Modelscited by 679
  9. 2016Making Deep Neural Networks Robust to Label Noise: a Loss Correction Approachcited by 663
  10. 2020Intrinsic Dimensionality Explains the Effectiveness of Language Model Fine-Tuningcited by 658
  11. 2022Language in a Bottle: Language Model Guided Concept Bottlenecks for Interpretable Image Classificationcited by 310
  12. 2022Post-hoc Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 289
9 more
  1. 2023Label-Free Concept Bottleneck Modelscited by 282
  2. 2017All-but-the-Top: Simple and Effective Postprocessing for Word Representationscited by 205
  3. 2021Promises and Pitfalls of Black-Box Concept Learning Modelscited by 128
  4. 2021Do Concept Bottleneck Models Learn as Intended?cited by 114
  5. 2023ChatGPT-4 Outperforms Experts and Crowd Workers in Annotating Political Twitter Messages with Zero-Shot Learningcited by 97
  6. 2022Overlooked factors in concept-based explanations: Dataset choice, concept learnability, and human capabilitycited by 46
  7. 2019iSarcasm: A Dataset of Intended Sarcasmcited by 39
  8. 2023Interpretable-by-Design Text Understanding with Iteratively Generated Concept Bottleneckcited by 21
  9. 2025AdParaphrase: Paraphrase Dataset for Analyzing Linguistic Features toward Generating Attractive Ad Textscited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.