REVIEW 1 cited by
Staying True to Your Word: (How) Can Attention Become Explanation?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
The attention mechanism has quickly become ubiquitous in NLP. In addition to improving performance of models, attention has been widely used as a glimpse into the inner workings of NLP models. The latter aspect has in the recent years become a common topic of discussion, most notably in work of Jain and Wallace, 2019; Wiegreffe and Pinter, 2019. With the shortcomings of using attention weights as a tool of transparency revealed, the attention mechanism has been stuck in a limbo without concrete proof when and whether it can be used as an explanation. In this paper, we provide an explanation as to why attention has seen rightful critique when used with recurrent networks in sequence classification tasks. We propose a remedy to these issues in the form of a word level objective and our findings give credibility for attention to provide faithful interpretations of recurrent models.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
A Preliminary Study on Explaining Risk of Code Changes using LLM-Based Prediction Models
Top-2 attention-highlighted hunks cover expert-labeled outage root causes 53.85% of the time while requiring review of 26.28% of changed lines.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.