Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ubiquitous presence of automated decision-making systems that have a performance comparable to humans brought attention towards the necessity of interpretability for the generated predictions. Whether the goal is predicting the system’s behavior when the input changes, building user trust, or expert assistance in improving the machine learning methods, interpretability is paramount when the problem is not sufficiently validated in real applications, and when unacceptable results lead to significant consequences. While for humans, there are no standard interpretations for the decisions they make, the complexity of the systems with advanced information-processing capacities conceals the detailed explanations for individual predictions, encapsulating them under layers of abstractions and complex mathematical operations. Interpretability for deep learning classifiers becomes, thus, a challenging research topic where the ambiguity of the problem statement allows for multiple exploratory paths. Our work focuses on generating natural language interpretations for individual predictions of deep learning text classifiers. We propose a framework for extracting and identifying the phrases of the training corpus that influence the prediction confidence the most through unsupervised key phrase extraction and neural predictions. We assess the contribution margin that the added justification has when the deep learning model predicts the class probability of a text instance, by introducing and defining a contribution metric that allows one to quantify the fidelity of the explanation to the model. We assess both the performance impact of the proposed approach on the classification task as quantitative analysis and the quality of the generated justifications through extensive qualitative and error analysis. This methodology manages to capture the most influencing phrases of the training corpus as explanations that reveal the linguistic features used for individual test predictions, allowing humans to predict the behavior of the deep learning classifier.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".