Testing the effectiveness of saliency-based explainability in NLP using randomized survey-based experiments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.15351v1
• Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2022 08:49:01 GMT
• Title: Testing the effectiveness of saliency-based explainability in NLP using randomized survey-based experiments
• Authors: Adel Rahimi, Shaurya Jain
• Abstract summary: A lot of work in Explainable AI has aimed to devise explanation methods that give humans insights into the workings and predictions of NLP models. Innate human tendencies and biases can handicap the understanding of these explanations in humans. We designed a randomized survey-based experiment to understand the effectiveness of saliency-based Post-hoc explainability methods in Natural Language Processing.
• Score: 0.6091702876917281
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As the applications of Natural Language Processing (NLP) in sensitive areas like Political Profiling, Review of Essays in Education, etc. proliferate, there is a great need for increasing transparency in NLP models to build trust with stakeholders and identify biases. A lot of work in Explainable AI has aimed to devise explanation methods that give humans insights into the workings and predictions of NLP models. While these methods distill predictions from complex models like Neural Networks into consumable explanations, how humans understand these explanations is still widely unexplored. Innate human tendencies and biases can handicap the understanding of these explanations in humans, and can also lead to them misjudging models and predictions as a result. We designed a randomized survey-based experiment to understand the effectiveness of saliency-based Post-hoc explainability methods in Natural Language Processing. The result of the experiment showed that humans have a tendency to accept explanations with a less critical view.

Related papers

• XForecast: Evaluating Natural Language Explanations for Time Series Forecasting [72.57427992446698]
  Time series forecasting aids decision-making, especially for stakeholders who rely on accurate predictions. Traditional explainable AI (XAI) methods, which underline feature or temporal importance, often require expert knowledge. evaluating forecast NLEs is difficult due to the complex causal relationships in time series data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T05:16:39Z)
• Explaining Text Similarity in Transformer Models [52.571158418102584]
  Recent advances in explainable AI have made it possible to mitigate limitations by leveraging improved explanations for Transformers. We use BiLRP, an extension developed for computing second-order explanations in bilinear similarity models, to investigate which feature interactions drive similarity in NLP models. Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of different semantic similarity tasks and models, highlighting how novel explainable AI methods enable in-depth analyses and corpus-level insights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T17:11:31Z)
• Evaluating the Utility of Model Explanations for Model Development [54.23538543168767]
  We evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development. To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps. These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-10T23:13:23Z)
• Interpreting Pretrained Language Models via Concept Bottlenecks [55.47515772358389]
  Pretrained language models (PLMs) have made significant strides in various natural language processing tasks. The lack of interpretability due to their black-box'' nature poses challenges for responsible implementation. We propose a novel approach to interpreting PLMs by employing high-level, meaningful concepts that are easily understandable for humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T20:41:18Z)
• Faithfulness Tests for Natural Language Explanations [87.01093277918599]
  Explanations of neural models aim to reveal a model's decision-making process for its predictions. Recent work shows that current methods giving explanations such as saliency maps or counterfactuals can be misleading. This work explores the challenging question of evaluating the faithfulness of natural language explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T11:40:37Z)
• Counterfactuals of Counterfactuals: a back-translation-inspired approach to analyse counterfactual editors [3.4253416336476246]
  We focus on the analysis of counterfactual, contrastive explanations. We propose a new back translation-inspired evaluation methodology. We show that by iteratively feeding the counterfactual to the explainer we can obtain valuable insights into the behaviour of both the predictor and the explainer models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T16:04:28Z)
• Towards Faithful Model Explanation in NLP: A Survey [48.690624266879155]
  End-to-end neural Natural Language Processing (NLP) models are notoriously difficult to understand. One desideratum of model explanation is faithfulness, i.e. an explanation should accurately represent the reasoning process behind the model's prediction. We review over 110 model explanation methods in NLP through the lens of faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-22T21:40:51Z)
• A survey on improving NLP models with human explanations [10.14196008734383]
  Training a model with access to human explanations can improve data efficiency and model performance on in- and out-of-domain data. Similarity with the process of human learning makes learning from explanations a promising way to establish a fruitful human-machine interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-19T13:43:31Z)
• Post-hoc Interpretability for Neural NLP: A Survey [38.67924043709067]
  Interpretability serves to provide explanations in terms that are understandable to humans. This survey provides a categorization of how recent post-hoc interpretability methods communicate explanations to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-10T18:00:14Z)
• You Can Do Better! If You Elaborate the Reason When Making Prediction [13.658942796267015]
  This paper proposes a novel neural predictive framework coupled with large pre-trained language models to make a prediction and generate its corresponding explanation simultaneously. We conducted a preliminary empirical study on Chinese medical multiple-choice question answering, English natural language inference and commonsense question answering tasks. The proposed method also achieves improved prediction accuracy on three datasets, which indicates that making predictions can benefit from generating the explanation in the decision process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-27T14:55:19Z)

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.