Towards Human-Centred Explainability Benchmarks For Text Classification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.05452v1
• Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 09:52:31 GMT
• Title: Towards Human-Centred Explainability Benchmarks For Text Classification
• Authors: Viktor Schlegel, Erick Mendez-Guzman and Riza Batista-Navarro
• Abstract summary: We propose to extend text classification benchmarks to evaluate the explainability of text classifiers. We review challenges associated with objectively evaluating the capabilities to produce valid explanations. We propose to ground these benchmarks in human-centred applications.
• Score: 4.393754160527062
• License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
• Abstract: Progress on many Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, such as text classification, is driven by objective, reproducible and scalable evaluation via publicly available benchmarks. However, these are not always representative of real-world scenarios where text classifiers are employed, such as sentiment analysis or misinformation detection. In this position paper, we put forward two points that aim to alleviate this problem. First, we propose to extend text classification benchmarks to evaluate the explainability of text classifiers. We review challenges associated with objectively evaluating the capabilities to produce valid explanations which leads us to the second main point: We propose to ground these benchmarks in human-centred applications, for example by using social media, gamification or to learn explainability metrics from human judgements.

Related papers

• Evaluating Text Classification Robustness to Part-of-Speech Adversarial Examples [0.6445605125467574]
  Adversarial examples are inputs that are designed to trick the decision making process, and are intended to be imperceptible to humans. For text-based classification systems, changes to the input, a string of text, are always perceptible. To improve the quality of text-based adversarial examples, we need to know what elements of the input text are worth focusing on.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-15T18:33:54Z)
• DecompEval: Evaluating Generated Texts as Unsupervised Decomposed Question Answering [95.89707479748161]
  Existing evaluation metrics for natural language generation (NLG) tasks face the challenges on generalization ability and interpretability. We propose a metric called DecompEval that formulates NLG evaluation as an instruction-style question answering task. We decompose our devised instruction-style question about the quality of generated texts into the subquestions that measure the quality of each sentence. The subquestions with their answers generated by PLMs are then recomposed as evidence to obtain the evaluation result.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-13T16:16:51Z)
• MISMATCH: Fine-grained Evaluation of Machine-generated Text with Mismatch Error Types [68.76742370525234]
  We propose a new evaluation scheme to model human judgments in 7 NLP tasks, based on the fine-grained mismatches between a pair of texts. Inspired by the recent efforts in several NLP tasks for fine-grained evaluation, we introduce a set of 13 mismatch error types. We show that the mismatch errors between the sentence pairs on the held-out datasets from 7 NLP tasks align well with the human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T01:38:53Z)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments [81.66697572357477]
  We propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using large language models (LLMs) We feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric. Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:19:14Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)
• Task-Specific Embeddings for Ante-Hoc Explainable Text Classification [6.671252951387647]
  We propose an alternative training objective in which we learn task-specific embeddings of text. Our proposed objective learns embeddings such that all texts that share the same target class label should be close together. We present extensive experiments which show that the benefits of ante-hoc explainability and incremental learning come at no cost in overall classification accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-30T19:56:25Z)
• Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg: Assessing Coherence of Text Classifiers [0.05857406612420462]
  Large-scale, pre-trained language models achieve human-level and superhuman accuracy on existing language understanding tasks. We propose evaluating systems through a novel measure of prediction coherence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-10T15:04:23Z)
• Hierarchical Bi-Directional Self-Attention Networks for Paper Review Rating Recommendation [81.55533657694016]
  We propose a Hierarchical bi-directional self-attention Network framework (HabNet) for paper review rating prediction and recommendation. Specifically, we leverage the hierarchical structure of the paper reviews with three levels of encoders: sentence encoder (level one), intra-review encoder (level two) and inter-review encoder (level three) We are able to identify useful predictors to make the final acceptance decision, as well as to help discover the inconsistency between numerical review ratings and text sentiment conveyed by reviewers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-02T08:07:50Z)
• Weakly-Supervised Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis via Joint Aspect-Sentiment Topic Embedding [71.2260967797055]
  We propose a weakly-supervised approach for aspect-based sentiment analysis. We learn sentiment, aspect> joint topic embeddings in the word embedding space. We then use neural models to generalize the word-level discriminative information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-13T21:33:24Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.