Are Human Explanations Always Helpful? Towards Objective Evaluation of Human Natural Language Explanations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.03117v2
• Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 05:20:04 GMT
• Title: Are Human Explanations Always Helpful? Towards Objective Evaluation of Human Natural Language Explanations
• Authors: Bingsheng Yao, Prithviraj Sen, Lucian Popa, James Hendler and Dakuo Wang
• Abstract summary: We build on the view that the quality of a human-annotated explanation can be measured based on its helpfulness. We define a new metric that can take into consideration the helpfulness of an explanation for model performance.
• Score: 27.624182544486334
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Human-annotated labels and explanations are critical for training explainable NLP models. However, unlike human-annotated labels whose quality is easier to calibrate (e.g., with a majority vote), human-crafted free-form explanations can be quite subjective. Before blindly using them as ground truth to train ML models, a vital question needs to be asked: How do we evaluate a human-annotated explanation's quality? In this paper, we build on the view that the quality of a human-annotated explanation can be measured based on its helpfulness (or impairment) to the ML models' performance for the desired NLP tasks for which the annotations were collected. In comparison to the commonly used Simulatability score, we define a new metric that can take into consideration the helpfulness of an explanation for model performance at both fine-tuning and inference. With the help of a unified dataset format, we evaluated the proposed metric on five datasets (e.g., e-SNLI) against two model architectures (T5 and BART), and the results show that our proposed metric can objectively evaluate the quality of human-annotated explanations, while Simulatability falls short.

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)
• 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)
• Digital Socrates: Evaluating LLMs through Explanation Critiques [37.25959112212333]
  Digital Socrates is an open-source, automatic critique model for model explanations. We show how Digital Socrates is useful for revealing insights about student models by examining their reasoning chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T06:51:46Z)
• 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)
• Bridging the Gap: A Survey on Integrating (Human) Feedback for Natural Language Generation [68.9440575276396]
  This survey aims to provide an overview of the recent research that has leveraged human feedback to improve natural language generation. First, we introduce an encompassing formalization of feedback, and identify and organize existing research into a taxonomy following this formalization. Second, we discuss how feedback can be described by its format and objective, and cover the two approaches proposed to use feedback (either for training or decoding): directly using the feedback or training feedback models. Third, we provide an overview of the nascent field of AI feedback, which exploits large language models to make judgments based on a set of principles and minimize the need for
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-01T17:36:06Z)
• A Song of (Dis)agreement: Evaluating the Evaluation of Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Natural Language Processing [7.527234046228323]
  We argue that the community should stop using rank correlation as an evaluation metric for attention-based explanations. We find that attention-based explanations do not correlate strongly with any recent feature attribution methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T21:07:39Z)
• To what extent do human explanations of model behavior align with actual model behavior? [91.67905128825402]
  We investigated the extent to which human-generated explanations of models' inference decisions align with how models actually make these decisions. We defined two alignment metrics that quantify how well natural language human explanations align with model sensitivity to input words. We find that a model's alignment with human explanations is not predicted by the model's accuracy on NLI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-24T17:40:06Z)
• Leakage-Adjusted Simulatability: Can Models Generate Non-Trivial Explanations of Their Behavior in Natural Language? [86.60613602337246]
  We introduce a leakage-adjusted simulatability (LAS) metric for evaluating NL explanations. LAS measures how well explanations help an observer predict a model's output, while controlling for how explanations can directly leak the output. We frame explanation generation as a multi-agent game and optimize explanations for simulatability while penalizing label leakage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-08T16:59:07Z)

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.