\scalerel*X PEACH: Pretrained-embedding Explanation
Across Contextual and Hierarchical Structure

We first wrangle the extracted pretrained contextual embeddings in order to demonstrate the contextual understanding capability of the fine-tuned model. Note that we use fine-tuned contextual embedding as input features by applying the following two steps.

We apply the feature matrix $F$ to construct various types of decision trees. In this section, we describe several traditional decision tree training algorithms that we adopted for our model. The ID3 algorithm calculates the information gain to determine the specific feature for splitting the data into subsets. For each input feature $f_{i}\in F$ that has not been used as a splitting node previously, the information gain (IG) is computed as follows to split the current set of data instances $S$:

	$\displaystyle IG(S,f_{i})$	$\displaystyle=H(S)-\sum_{t\in T}p(t)H(t)$		(5)
		$\displaystyle=H(S)-H(S|f_{i})$

where $H(S)$ is entropy of the current set of data $S$, $T$ is the subsets of data instances created from splitting $S$ by $f_{i}$ and p(t) is the proportion of the number of elements in $t$ to the number of elements in $S$ and $H(t)$ is the entropy of subset $t$. The feature with the maximum information gain is selected to split $S$ into two different splits as the child nodes. The C4.5 algorithm calculates the gain ratio to select the specific feature to split the data into subsets. It is similar to ID3 but instead of calculating information gain, it calculates the gain ratio to select the splitting feature. The gain ratio is calculated as follows:

$$GainRatio(S,f_{i})=\frac{IG(S,f_{i})}{SplitInfo(S,f_{i})}$$

(6)

where

$$SplitInfo(S,f_{i})=\sum_{t\in T}p(t)log_{2}(t)$$

(7)

The CART algorithm calculates the Gini index to select the specific feature for splitting the data into subsets. The Gini index is defined as:

$$Gini(S,f_{i})=1-\sum_{x=1}^{n}(P_{x})^{2}$$

(8)

where $P_{x}$ is the probability of a data instance being classified to a particular class. The feature with the smallest Gini is selected as the splitting node. The Random Forest (RF) algorithm functions as an ensemble of multiple decision trees, where each tree is generated using a randomly selected subset of the input features. The individual trees in the forest can be constructed using any of the aforementioned algorithms.

As mentioned earlier, PEACH aims to foster global and local interpretability for text classification by arranging hierarchical-structured decision rules. Note that PEACH aims to simulate the context understanding, show the text classification decision-making process and transparently present a hierarchical decision tree. For the decision tree, the leaves present the class distributions, the paths from the root to the leaves represent the learned classification rules, and the nodes contain representative parts of the textual corpus. In this section, we explain the way of representing the node in the tree structure and which way of visualisation presents a valuable pattern for human interpretation.

We evaluate PEACH with 5 state-of-the-art PLMs on 9 benchmark datasets. Those datasets encompass five text classification tasks, including Natural Language Inference (NLI), Sentiment Analysis (SA), News Classification (NC), Topic Analysis (TA), and Question Type Classification (QC). 1) Natural Language Inference (NLI) Microsoft Research Paraphrase (MSRP) Dolan et al. (2004) contains 5801 sentence pairs with binary labels. The task is to determine whether each pair is a paraphrase or not. The training set contains 4076 sentence pairs and 1725 testing pairs for generating decision trees. During PLM finetuning, we randomly split the training set with a 9:1 ratio so 3668 pairs are used for training and 408 pairs are used for validation. Sentences Involving Compositional Knowledge (SICK) Marelli et al. (2014) dataset consists of 9840 sentence pairs that involve compositional semantics. Each pair can be classified into three classes: entailment, neutral or contradiction. The dataset has 4439, 495, and 4906 pairs for training, validation and testing sets. For both MSRP and SICK, We combine each sentence pair as one instance when finetuning PLMs. 2) Sentiment Analysis (SA) The sentiment analysis datasets in this study are binary for predicting positive or negative movie reviews. Standford Sentiment Treebank (SST2) Socher et al. (2013) has 6920, 872 and 1821 documents for training, validation and testing. The MR Pang and Lee (2005) has 7108 training and 3554 training documents. IMDB Maas et al. (2011) and 25000 training and 25000 training documents. For MR and IMDB, since no official validation split is provided, the training sets are randomly split into a 9:1 ratio to obtain a validation set for finetuning PLMs. 3) News Classification (NC) The BBCNews is used to classify news articles into five categories: entertainment, technology, politics, business, and sports. There are 1225 training and 1000 testing instances, and we further split the 1225 training instances with 9:1 ratio to get the validation set for finetuning PLMs. 20ng is for news categorization with 11314 training and 7532 testing documents and aims to classify news articles into 20 different categories. Similar to BBCNews, the training set is split with 9:1 ratio to obtain the finetuning validation set. 4) Topic Analysis (TA) The Ohsumed provides 7400 medical abstracts, with 3357 train and 4043 test, to categorise into 23 disease types. 5) Question Type Classification (QC) The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) Question Classification dataset offers 5452 questions in the training and 500 questions in the testing set. This dataset categorises different natural language questions into six types: abbreviation, entity, description and abstract, human, location, and numbers.

We perform finetuning of the PLMs and then construct the decision tree-based text classification model for the evaluation. We initialise the weights from five base models: bert-base-uncased, roberta-base, albert-base-v2, xlnet-base-cased and the original 93.6M ELMo for BERT, RoBERTa, ALBERT, XLNet, and ELMo respectively. A batch size of 32 is applied for all models and datasets. The learning rate is set to 5e-5 for all models, except for the ALBERT model of SST2, 20ng and IMDB datasets, where is set to 1e-5. All models are fine-tuned for 4 epochs, except for the 20ng, which used 30 epochs. To extract the features from learned embedding and reduce the number of input features into the decision tree, we experiment with quantile thresholds of 0.9 and 0.95 for correlation methods. For k-means clustering, we search for the number of clusters from 10 to 100 (step size: 10 or 20), except for IMDB where we search from 130 to 220 (step size: 30). For CNN features, we use kernel size 2, stride size 2, and padding size 0 for two convolution layers. The same hyperparameters are applied to the first pooling layer, except for IMDB where stride size 1 is used to ensure we can have enough input features for the next convolutional block and get enough large number of features from the last pooling layer. Kernel size and stride size for the last pooling layer are adjusted to maintain consistency with the number of clusters used in k-means clustering. Decision trees are trained using the chefboost library with a maximum depth of 95. We used em_core_web_sm model provided by spaCy library to obtain the NER and POS tags for visualization filters. All experiments are conducted on Google Colab with Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU and NVIDIA T4 Tensor Core GPU. Classification accuracy is reported for comparison.

We first evaluate the utility of PLMs after incorporating PEACH in Table 1. As shown, our proposed PEACH with PLMs (rows 7-11) outperforms or performs similarly to the fine-tuned PLMs (rows 2-6) in all benchmarks. Note that our model outperforms the baselines in all binary sentiment analysis datasets (SST2, MR, IMDB) when utilising RoBERTa features in our PEACH model. Furthermore, our model outperforms the baselines in more general domain datasets with multiple classes, such as BBC News, TREC, and 20ng, when BERT features are employed in PEACH. We also experimented with various types of PLMs, other than BERT and RoBERTa, on our PEACH, including BERT-based (ALBERT), generative-based (XLNet), and LSTM-based model (ELMo). In general, RoBERTa and BERT performed better across all datasets, except IMDB, where XLNet and its PEACH model showed superior performance. This observation is attributed to the larger corpus of IMDB and requires more features for an accurate explanation.

The Maximum Tree Depth Analysis was conducted to evaluate the visualisation of the decision-making pattern. The result can be found in Appendix C.

To assess interpretability and trustability, we conducted a human evaluation⁹⁹9Sample Cases for the Human Evaluation is in the Appendix H, 26 human judges¹⁰¹⁰10Annotators are undergraduates and graduates in computer science; 6 females and 20 males. The number of human judges and samples is relatively higher than other NLP interpretation papers Rajagopal et al. (2021) annotated 75 samples from MR, SST2, TREC, and BBC News. Judges conducted the pairwise comparison between local and global explanations generated by PEACH against two commonly used text classification-based interpretability models, LIME Ribeiro et al. (2016) and Anchor Ribeiro et al. (2018). The judges were asked to choose the approach they trusted more based on the interpretation and visualisation provided. We specifically considered samples, where both LIME and PEACH or Anchor and PEACH predictions were the same, following Wan et al. (2021). Among 26 judges, our PEACH explanation evidently outperforms the baselines by a large margin. All percentages in the first column of all four datasets are over 84%, indicating that the majority of annotators selected our model to be better across interpretability and trustability. The last column (‘Agree’) represents results from the Fleiss’ kappa test used to assess inter-rater consistency, and all the agreement scores are over 0.7 which shows a strong level of agreement between annotators. Several judges commented that the visualisation method of PEACH allows them to see the full view of the decision-making process in a hierarchical decision path and check how the context is trained in each decision node. This indicates a higher level of trust in PEACH than in the saliency technique commonly employed in NLP.

Figure 1 in Section 1 shows the sample interpretations by PEACH on MR, a binary dataset predicting positive or negative movie reviews. The global explanation in Figure 1(left) faithfully shows the entire classification decision-making behaviour in detail. Globally, the decision tree and its nodes cover various movie-related entities and emotions, like DOCUMENTARY, FUN, FUNNY, ROMANTIC, CAST, HOLLYWOOD, etc. In addition, final nodes (leaves) are passed via the clear path with definite semantic words, distinguishing between negative and positive reviews. In addition to the global interpretation, our PEACH can produce a local explanation (Figure 1, right). By applying generated decision rules to the specific input text, a rule path for the given input simulates the decision path that can be derived to the final classification (positive or negative).

We also present how PEACH can visualise the interpretation by comparing the successful and unsuccessful pretrained embeddings in Figure 3. While the successful one (RoBERTa with MR - Figure 3 left) shows a clear and traceable view of how they can classify the positive samples by using adjectives like moving and engaging, the unsuccessful one (ELMo with MR - Figure 3 right) has many ambiguous terminologies and does not seem to understand the pattern in both positive and negative classes, e.g. amusing is in the negative class. More visualisations on different datasets and models are shown in Appendix D and E.

We developed an interactive decision tree-based text classification decision-making interpretation system for different PLMs. This would be useful for human users to check the feasibility of their pretrained and/or fine-tuned model. The user interface and detailed description are in Appendix F.

Furthermore, illustrated in Appendix G, we undertook an additional case study focused on the high-risk text classification domain, specifically in tasks such as medical report analysis. This endeavour aimed to illustrate how interpretability can be effectively integrated into specialised domains with heightened sensitivity and complexity. By applying our visualization techniques and interpretative tools to the intricacies of medical text analysis, we sought to demonstrate the adaptability and utility of our approach in enhancing transparency and understanding within critical and specialized areas of text classification.