Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention mechanism has become a standard fixture in many state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models, not only due to its outstanding performance, but also because it provides plausible innate explanations for neural architectures. However, recent studies show that attention is unstable against randomness and perturbations during training or testing, such as random seeds and slight perturbation of embeddings, which impedes it from being a faithful explanation tool. Thus, a natural question is whether we can find an alternate of the vanilla attention, which is more stable and could keep the key characteristics of the explanation. In this paper, we provide a rigorous definition of such an attention method named SEAT (Stable and Explainable ATtention). Specifically, SEAT has the following three properties: (1) Its prediction distribution is close to the prediction of the vanilla attention; (2) Its top- k indices largely overlap with those of the vanilla attention; (3) It is robust w.r.t perturbations, i.e., any slight perturbation on SEAT will not change the attention and prediction distribution too much, which implicitly indicates that it is stable to randomness and perturbations. Furthermore, we propose an optimization method for obtaining SEAT, which could be considered as revising the vanilla attention. Finally, through in- tensive experiments on various datasets, we compare our SEAT with other baseline methods using RNN, BiLSTM and BERT architectures, with different evaluation metrics on model interpretation, stability and accuracy. Results show that, besides preserving the original explainability and model performance, SEAT is more stable against input perturbations and training randomness, which indicates it is a more faithful explanation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".