Although In-Context Learning has proven effective across a broad array of tasks, its efficiency is noticeably influenced by the selection of demonstrations. Existing methods tend to select different demonstrations for each test instance, which is time-consuming and poses limitations in practical scenarios. Therefore, this study aims to address the challenge of selecting a representative subset of in-context demonstrations that can effectively prompt different test instances in a specific task. We propose that this representative subset should be of high quality and diversity. Our empirical analyses confirm that demonstrations that meet these criteria can indeed bolster model performance. To satisfy these criteria, this paper further introduces a two-stage Determinantal Point Process (DPP) method designed to incorporate both quality and diversity in the process of demonstration selection, thereby obtaining representative in-context demonstrations. Through comprehensive experimentation, we have confirmed the efficacy of our proposed method, paving the way for more practical and effective In-Context Learning.

Modern deep learning models are notoriously opaque, which has motivated the development of methods for interpreting how deep models predict. This goal is usually approached with attribution method, which assesses the influence of features on model predictions. As an explanation method, the evaluation criteria of attribution methods is how accurately it reflects the actual reasoning process of the model (faithfulness). Meanwhile, since the reasoning process of deep models is inaccessible, researchers design various evaluation methods to demonstrate their arguments. However, some crucial logic traps in these evaluation methods are ignored in most works, causing inaccurate evaluation and unfair comparison. This paper systematically reviews existing methods for evaluating attribution scores and summarizes the logic traps in these methods. We further conduct experiments to demonstrate the existence of each logic trap. Through both theoretical and experimental analysis, we hope to increase attention on the inaccurate evaluation of attribution scores. Moreover, with this paper, we suggest stopping focusing on improving performance under unreliable evaluation systems and starting efforts on reducing the impact of proposed logic traps.

Deep learning models have achieved great success on the task of Natural Language Inference (NLI), though only a few attempts try to explain their behaviors. Existing explanation methods usually pick prominent features such as words or phrases from the input text. However, for NLI, alignments among words or phrases are more enlightening clues to explain the model. To this end, this paper presents AREC, a post-hoc approach to generate alignment rationale explanations for co-attention based models in NLI. The explanation is based on feature selection, which keeps few but sufficient alignments while maintaining the same prediction of the target model. Experimental results show that our method is more faithful and human-readable compared with many existing approaches. We further study and re-evaluate three typical models through our explanation beyond accuracy, and propose a simple method that greatly improves the model robustness.