"Will You Find These Shortcuts?" A Protocol for Evaluating the Faithfulness of Input Salience Methods for Text Classification
Jasmijn Bastings, Sebastian Ebert, Polina Zablotskaia, Anders Sandholm, Katja Filippova
Abstract
Feature attribution a.k.a. input salience methods which assign an importance score to a feature are abundant but may produce surprisingly different results for the same model on the same input. While differences are expected if disparate definitions of importance are assumed, most methods claim to provide faithful attributions and point at the features most relevant for a model's prediction. Existing work on faithfulness evaluation is not conclusive and does not provide a clear answer as to how different methods are to be compared. Focusing on text classification and the model debugging scenario, our main contribution is a protocol for faithfulness evaluation that makes use of partially synthetic data to obtain ground truth for feature importance ranking. Following the protocol, we do an in-depth analysis of four standard salience method classes on a range of datasets and lexical shortcuts for BERT and LSTM models. We demonstrate that some of the most popular method configurations provide poor results even for simple shortcuts while a method judged to be too simplistic works remarkably well for BERT. * Equal contribution.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext c2c1458f-0a2a-4538-9577-6ace009d9350Cited by top-tier papers17
- Protein Design with Guided Discrete DiffusionNate Gruver, Samuel Stanton, Nathan C. Frey, Tim G. J. Rudner et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 246 citations
- Post hoc Explanations may be Ineffective for Detecting Unknown Spurious CorrelationJulius Adebayo, Michael Muelly, Harold Abelson, Been KimICLR 2022 · 102 citations
- Stability Guarantees for Feature Attributions with Multiplicative SmoothingAnton Xue, Rajeev Alur, Eric WongNeurIPS 2023 · 18 citations
- On the Impact of Knowledge Distillation for Model InterpretabilityHyeongrok Han, Siwon Kim, Hyun-Soo Choi, Sungroh YoonICML 2023 · 13 citations
- Out-of-Distribution Generalization in Natural Language Processing: Past, Present, and FutureLinyi Yang, Yaoxian Song, Xuan Ren, Chenyang Lyu et al.EMNLP 2023 · 12 citations
Builds on11
- Learning The Difference That Makes A Difference With Counterfactually-Augmented DataDivyansh Kaushik, Eduard H. Hovy, Zachary Chase LiptonICLR 2020 · 625 citations
- Generating Radiology Reports via Memory-driven TransformerZhihong Chen, Yan Song, Tsung-Hui Chang, Xiang WanEMNLP 2020 · 552 citations
- Debugging Tests for Model ExplanationsJulius Adebayo, Michael Muelly, Ilaria Liccardi, Been KimNeurIPS 2020 · 209 citations
- Do Feature Attribution Methods Correctly Attribute Features?Yilun Zhou, Serena Booth, Marco Túlio Ribeiro, Julie ShahAAAI 2022 · 167 citations
- A Diagnostic Study of Explainability Techniques for Text ClassificationPepa Atanasova, Jakob Grue Simonsen, Christina Lioma, Isabelle AugensteinEMNLP 2020 · 158 citations
Related papers
- Evaluating Attribution for Graph Neural NetworksBenjamín Sánchez-Lengeling, Jennifer N. Wei, Brian K. Lee, Emily Reif et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 159 citations
- Learning to Faithfully Rationalize by ConstructionSarthak Jain, Sarah Wiegreffe, Yuval Pinter, Byron C. WallaceACL 2020
- An Empirical Study on Explanations in Out-of-Domain SettingsGeorge Chrysostomou, Nikolaos AletrasACL 2022
- Towards Better Understanding Attribution MethodsSukrut Rao, Moritz Böhle, Bernt SchieleCVPR 2022 · 32 citations
- Explain, Edit, and Understand: Rethinking User Study Design for Evaluating Model ExplanationsSiddhant Arora, Danish Pruthi, Norman M. Sadeh, William W. Cohen et al.AAAI 2022 · 47 citations
