ACL Findings2021
Explaining NLP Models via Minimal Contrastive Editing (MiCE)
Alexis Ross, Ana Marasovic, Matthew E. Peters
Abstract
Humans have been shown to give contrastive explanations, which explain why an observed event happened rather than some other counterfactual event (the contrast case).
Despite the influential role that contrastivity plays in how humans explain, this property is largely missing from current methods for explaining NLP models. We present MIN-IMAL CONTRASTIVE EDITING (MICE), a method for producing contrastive explanations of model predictions in the form of edits to inputs that change model outputs to the contrast case. Our experiments across three tasks-binary sentiment classification, topic classification, and multiple-choice question answering-show that MICE is able to produce edits that are not only contrastive, but also minimal and fluent, consistent with human contrastive edits. We demonstrate how MICE edits can be used for two use cases in NLP system development-debugging incorrect model outputs and uncovering dataset artifacts-and thereby illustrate that producing contrastive explanations is a promising research direction for model interpretability.
Ask Lune
Ask anything. The answer quotes the paper.
Lune reads all of it and the papers around it, then shows you the passages behind every answer.
Lune answers from
the full paper · 24 top-tier papers that cite it · related work
Free to start. No credit card required.
Cited by top-tier papers24
- Tailor: Generating and Perturbing Text with Semantic ControlsAlexis Ross, Tongshuang Wu, Hao Peng, Matthew E. Peters et al.ACL 2022 · 85 citations
- Understanding Interlocking Dynamics of Cooperative RationalizationMo Yu, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Tommi S. JaakkolaNeurIPS 2021 · 52 citations
- Retrieval-guided Counterfactual Generation for QABhargavi Paranjape, Matthew Lamm, Ian TenneyACL 2022 · 39 citations
- "Will You Find These Shortcuts?" A Protocol for Evaluating the Faithfulness of Input Salience Methods for Text ClassificationJasmijn Bastings, Sebastian Ebert, Polina Zablotskaia, Anders Sandholm et al.EMNLP 2022 · 29 citations
- Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLISuzanna Sia, Anton Belyy, Amjad Almahairi, Madian Khabsa et al.AAAI 2023 · 17 citations
Builds on14
- The Curious Case of Neural Text DegenerationAri Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes et al.ICLR 2020 · 4,112 citations
- Investigating Gender Bias in Language Models Using Causal Mediation AnalysisJesse Vig, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yonatan Belinkov, Sharon Qian et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 851 citations
- Learning The Difference That Makes A Difference With Counterfactually-Augmented DataDivyansh Kaushik, Eduard H. Hovy, Zachary Chase LiptonICLR 2020 · 625 citations
- BERT-ATTACK: Adversarial Attack Against BERT Using BERTLinyang Li, Ruotian Ma, Qipeng Guo, Xiangyang Xue et al.EMNLP 2020 · 529 citations
- Evaluating Models' Local Decision Boundaries via Contrast SetsMatt Gardner, Yoav Artzi, Victoria Basmova, Jonathan Berant et al.EMNLP Findings 2020 · 260 citations
Related papers
- Contrastive Explanations for Model InterpretabilityAlon Jacovi, Swabha Swayamdipta, Shauli Ravfogel, Yanai Elazar et al.EMNLP 2021 · 12 citations
- Let the CAT out of the bag: Contrastive Attributed explanations for TextSaneem A. Chemmengath, Amar Prakash Azad, Ronny Luss, Amit DhurandharEMNLP 2022 · 6 citations
- Counterfactual-based Saliency Map: Towards Visual Contrastive Explanations for Neural NetworksXue Wang, Zhibo Wang, Haiqin Weng, Hengchang Guo et al.ICCV 2023 · 15 citations
- LLMs Don't Know Their Own Decision Boundaries: The Unreliability of Self-Generated Counterfactual ExplanationsHarry Mayne, Ryan Othniel Kearns, Yushi Yang, Andrew M. Bean et al.EMNLP 2025 · 9 citations
- KACE: Generating Knowledge Aware Contrastive Explanations for Natural Language InferenceQianglong Chen, Feng Ji, Xiangji Zeng, Feng-Lin Li et al.ACL 2021
