ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Models
Jay DeYoung, Sarthak Jain, Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Eric P. Lehman, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, Byron C. Wallace
Abstract
State-of-the-art models in NLP are now predominantly based on deep neural networks that are opaque in terms of how they come to make predictions. This limitation has increased interest in designing more interpretable deep models for NLP that reveal the 'reasoning' behind model outputs. But work in this direction has been conducted on different datasets and tasks with correspondingly unique aims and metrics; this makes it difficult to track progress. We propose the Evaluating Rationales And Simple English Reasoning (ERASER ) benchmark to advance research on interpretable models in NLP. This benchmark comprises multiple datasets and tasks for which human annotations of "rationales" (supporting evidence) have been collected. We propose several metrics that aim to capture how well the rationales provided by models align with human rationales, and also how faithful these rationales are (i.e., the degree to which provided rationales influenced the corresponding predictions). Our hope is that releasing this benchmark facilitates progress on designing more interpretable NLP systems. The benchmark, code, and documentation are available at https://www.eraserbenchmark.com/
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 7bdeaf4f-1369-4f76-894f-a043c064cd98Cited by top-tier papers153
- The Unreliability of Explanations in Few-shot Prompting for Textual ReasoningXi Ye, Greg DurrettNeurIPS 2022 · 272 citations
- ExT5: Towards Extreme Multi-Task Scaling for Transfer LearningVamsi Aribandi, Yi Tay, Tal Schuster, Jinfeng Rao et al.ICLR 2022 · 237 citations
- Evaluating Explainable AI: Which Algorithmic Explanations Help Users Predict Model Behavior?Peter Hase, Mohit BansalACL 2020 · 216 citations
- Muppet: Massive Multi-task Representations with Pre-FinetuningArmen Aghajanyan, Anchit Gupta, Akshat Shrivastava, Xilun Chen et al.EMNLP 2021 · 176 citations
- A Diagnostic Study of Explainability Techniques for Text ClassificationPepa Atanasova, Jakob Grue Simonsen, Christina Lioma, Isabelle AugensteinEMNLP 2020 · 158 citations
Builds on3
- On Identifiability in TransformersGino Brunner, Yang Liu, Damian Pascual, Oliver Richter et al.ICLR 2020 · 210 citations
- Learning to Deceive with Attention-Based ExplanationsDanish Pruthi, Mansi Gupta, Bhuwan Dhingra, Graham Neubig et al.ACL 2020 · 17 citations
- Learning to Faithfully Rationalize by ConstructionSarthak Jain, Sarah Wiegreffe, Yuval Pinter, Byron C. WallaceACL 2020
Related papers
- QUASER: Question Answering with Scalable Extractive RationalizationAsish Ghoshal, Srinivasan Iyer, Bhargavi Paranjape, Kushal Lakhotia et al.SIGIR 2022 · 2 citations
- Pixels Don't Lie (But Your Detector Might): Bootstrapping MLLM-as-a-Judge for Trustworthy Deepfake Detection and Reasoning SupervisionKartik Kuckreja, Parul Gupta, Muhammad Haris Khan, Abhinav DhallCVPR 2026 · 5 citations
- Interpretable Neural-Symbolic Concept ReasoningPietro Barbiero, Gabriele Ciravegna, Francesco Giannini, Mateo Espinosa Zarlenga et al.ICML 2023 · 68 citations
- Is Multi-Hop Reasoning Really Explainable? Towards Benchmarking Reasoning InterpretabilityXin Lv, Yixin Cao, Lei Hou, Juanzi Li et al.EMNLP 2021 · 15 citations
- Learning to Rationalize for Nonmonotonic Reasoning with Distant SupervisionFaeze Brahman, Vered Shwartz, Rachel Rudinger, Yejin ChoiAAAI 2021 · 46 citations
