Evaluates the interpretability and faithfulness of neural NLP models by measuring how well token-level saliency rationales align with human-annotated ground truth rationales and model predictions across sentiment analysis, semantic textual similarity, and machine reading comprehension tasks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Fine-grained Interpretability Benchmark (SA/STS/MRC), or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Token-F1, MAP.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill fine-grained-interpretability-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Fine Grained Interpretability Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-fine-grained-interpretability-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: fine-grained-interpretability-eval
description: Evaluates the interpretability and faithfulness of neural NLP models by measuring how well token-level saliency rationales align with human-annotated ground truth rationales and model predictions across sentiment analysis, semantic textual similarity, and machine reading comprehension tasks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on Fine-grained Interpretability Benchmark (SA/STS/MRC), or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Token-F1, MAP.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2205.11097
bibtex_key: wang2022finegrained
confidence: high
---
# fine-grained-interpretability-eval
> A Fine-grained Interpretability Evaluation Benchmark for Neural NLP — Wang et al. (2022) (arXiv:2205.11097, 2022)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the interpretability and faithfulness of neural NLP models by measuring how well token-level saliency rationales align with human-annotated ground truth rationales and model predictions across sentiment analysis, semantic textual similarity, and machine reading comprehension tasks.
## Datasets
- **Fine-grained Interpretability Benchmark (SA/STS/MRC)** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `Token-F1` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Token-level F1 score between the set of top-k salient tokens and the ground truth rationale tokens. Higher is better.
- `MAP` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Mean Average Precision measuring the alignment between the ranked list of salient tokens and ground truth rationales. Applicable to both classification and non-classification tasks. Higher is better.
- `IOU-F1` — range: [0, 1]
- F1 score based on Intersection-over-Union overlap between predicted and ground truth rationales. Considered too coarse for low rationale length ratios.
- `Sufficiency` — range: other
- Measures prediction change when rationale tokens are removed. Lower is better. Only valid for classification tasks.
- `Comprehensiveness` — range: other
- Measures prediction change when non-rationale tokens are removed. Higher is better. Only valid for classification tasks.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Natural language text (single sentence, sentence pair, or passage with question) fed into a pre-trained or fine-tuned neural model.
**Output**: Token-level importance scores or a ranked list of tokens; the top-k^d tokens are selected to form the rationale.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_token_f1(pred_tokens, gold_tokens):
pred_set = set(pred_tokens)
gold_set = set(gold_tokens)
tp = len(pred_set & gold_set)
fp = len(pred_set - gold_set)
fn = len(gold_set - pred_set)
prec = tp / (tp + fp) if (tp + fp) > 0 else 0
rec = tp / (tp + fn) if (tp + fn) > 0 else 0
return 2 * prec * rec / (prec + rec) if (prec + rec) > 0 else 0
def compute_map(ranked_tokens, gold_tokens):
gold_set = set(gold_tokens)
hits = 0
ap = 0
for i, token in enumerate(ranked_tokens):
if token in gold_set:
hits += 1
ap += hits / (i + 1)
return ap / len(gold_set) if len(gold_set) > 0 else 0
```
## Common pitfalls
- IOU-F1 is too coarse for tasks with low rationale length ratios, as most instance overlaps fall below the 0.5 threshold.
- Sufficiency and Comprehensiveness metrics are only valid for classification tasks (SA, STS) and should not be applied to MRC.
- LIME is model-agnostic but was not applied to MRC tasks in the reported experiments.
- ATT method's sufficiency/comprehensiveness calculations can be inconsistent compared to IG and LIME.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We report results of token-F1 and IOU-F1 scores for plausibility. The higher the scores, the more plausible the rationales. For faithfulness evaluation, we report results of MAP, sufficiency and comprehensiveness scores.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{wang2022finegrained,
title={A Fine-grained Interpretability Evaluation Benchmark for Neural NLP},
author={Wang et al. (2022)},
year={2022},
note={arXiv:2205.11097}
}
```
- arXiv: 2205.11097
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!