Research

Training Classifiers With Natural Language Explanations

May 24, 2021
•
2 min read
•

Machine Learning Whiteboard (MLW) Open-source Series

Earlier this year, we started our machine learning whiteboard (MLW) series, an open-invite space to brainstorm ideas and discuss the latest papers, techniques, and workflows in the AI space. We emphasize an informal and open environment to everyone interested in learning about machine learning.In this episode, our Co-founder and Head of Technology. Braden Hancock speaks about “Training Classifiers with Natural Language Explanations,” a research paper by Braden Hancock, Paroma Varma, Stephanie Wang, Martin Bringmann, Percy Liang, and Christopher Ré presented at ACL 2018.This episode is part of the #MLwhiteboard video series hosted by the Snorkel AI team. Check out the episode here:

Abstract:

Training accurate classifiers requires many labels, but each label provides only limited information (one bit for binary classification). In this work, we propose BabbleLabble, a framework for training classifiers in which an annotator provides a natural language explanation for each labeling decision. A semantic parser converts these explanations into programmatic labeling functions that generate noisy labels for an arbitrary amount of unlabeled data, which is used to train a classifier. On three relation extraction tasks, we find that users are able to train classifiers with comparable F1 scores from 5-100× faster by providing explanations instead of just labels. Furthermore, given the inherent imperfection of labeling functions, we find that a simple rule-based semantic parser suffices.


If you are interested in learning with us, consider joining us at our biweekly ML whiteboard.If you’re interested in staying in touch with Snorkel AI, follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Youtube, or Instagram, and if you’re interested in joining the Snorkel team, we’re hiring! Please apply on our careers page.

Share this article

Recommended articles

View all articles
Image
Opus 5.5 vs Opus 5 vs Fable 5.1: Coding Benchmark Results
We’ve now run three generations of frontier models through the same expert-created terminal-bench style task set: Fable 5.1 in September, Opus 5 in July, and, now Opus 5.5. For this analysis, the task set contained 200 trajectories, of 24 tasks, with every failure traced to a judge-confirmed root cause. A generational climb On the task set, pass@1 is 61.5% for
September 23, 2026
•
Ankit Aich
,
Jonathan Schlosser
series-e-blog
Data 2.0 and the research era of AI data
Today, I’m excited to announce Snorkel’s $350M Series E financing at a $3.5B valuation, led by Insight and S32, with participation from Third Point, March, Blumberg, Allegis, Standard VC, Frontline, and existing investors Addition, Lightspeed, Greylock, GV, P7, Wells Fargo, Walden Catalyst Ventures, and Factory.
September 22, 2026
•
Alex Ratner
Image
Grok 4.7 on Senior SWE-Bench: Strong pass@3, Cheaper Cost per Trial
Grok 4.7 was evaluated on Senior SWE-Bench, our benchmark for measuring whether coding agents work like senior engineers. It reaches a tasteful pass@3 of 40.0%, up from 38.9% for Grok 4.6, ranking sixth overall at $0.24 per trial, which is a fraction of the cost compared to Opus 4.8. Benchmark Senior SWE-Bench evaluates agents as compared to a senior engineer.
September 22, 2026
•
Jonathan Schlosser
Image

Join our newsletter

For expert advice, the latest research, and exclusive events.
By submitting this form, I acknowledge I will receive email updates from Snorkel AI, and I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that my information will be used in accordance with the Privacy Policy.