Evaluating Saliency Explanations in NLP by Crowdsourcing
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper investigates how to effectively evaluate saliency explanations for natural language processing (NLP) models using crowdsourcing.
- Saliency explanations highlight the most important words or features that influence a model's predictions.
- The researchers conducted a crowdsourcing study to assess different methods for evaluating the quality and usefulness of these saliency explanations.
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores ways to effectively evaluate saliency explanations for natural language processing (NLP) models using crowdsourcing. Saliency explanations are like a map that shows the most important words or features that influence a model's predictions. The researchers wanted to find the best way to use crowdsourcing, where many people online complete small tasks, to assess the quality and usefulness of these saliency explanations.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted a crowdsourcing study to evaluate different methods for assessing saliency explanations in NLP. They tested various approaches, including:
- Having crowdworkers directly judge the quality and faithfulness of the saliency explanations
- Asking crowdworkers to complete tasks that indirectly measure the usefulness of the saliency explanations, such as predicting the model's output or identifying important parts of the input
The researchers used multiple NLP datasets and model architectures to evaluate their crowdsourcing methodologies. They also compared the crowdsourcing results to expert judgments to validate the crowdsourcing approach.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough and systematic evaluation of crowdsourcing approaches for assessing saliency explanations in NLP. The researchers acknowledge that further work is needed to fully understand the limitations and best practices of this crowdsourcing methodology. For example, the study did not explore how the quality of crowdsourcing judgments may vary based on the complexity of the NLP task or the level of domain expertise required.
Additionally, the paper does not address potential biases or inconsistencies that may arise in crowdsourcing evaluations, such as individual differences in how crowdworkers interpret and apply the evaluation criteria. Exploring the effects of explainable AI on human performance could provide valuable insights in this area.
Conclusion
This research demonstrates the feasibility and potential benefits of using crowdsourcing to evaluate saliency explanations for NLP models. The findings can help guide the development of more interpretable and transparent AI systems that can be better understood and trusted by users. However, further research is needed to address the limitations and refine the crowdsourcing methodologies presented in this paper.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Evaluating Saliency Explanations in NLP by Crowdsourcing
Xiaotian Lu, Jiyi Li, Zhen Wan, Xiaofeng Lin, Koh Takeuchi, Hisashi Kashima
Deep learning models have performed well on many NLP tasks. However, their internal mechanisms are typically difficult for humans to understand. The development of methods to explain models has become a key issue in the reliability of deep learning models in many important applications. Various saliency explanation methods, which give each feature of input a score proportional to the contribution of output, have been proposed to determine the part of the input which a model values most. Despite a considerable body of work on the evaluation of saliency methods, whether the results of various evaluation metrics agree with human cognition remains an open question. In this study, we propose a new human-based method to evaluate saliency methods in NLP by crowdsourcing. We recruited 800 crowd workers and empirically evaluated seven saliency methods on two datasets with the proposed method. We analyzed the performance of saliency methods, compared our results with existing automated evaluation methods, and identified notable differences between NLP and computer vision (CV) fields when using saliency methods. The instance-level data of our crowdsourced experiments and the code to reproduce the explanations are available at https://github.com/xtlu/lreccoling_evaluation.
Read more5/20/2024
0
Unraveling the Dilemma of AI Errors: Exploring the Effectiveness of Human and Machine Explanations for Large Language Models
Marvin Pafla, Kate Larson, Mark Hancock
The field of eXplainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has produced a plethora of methods (e.g., saliency-maps) to gain insight into artificial intelligence (AI) models, and has exploded with the rise of deep learning (DL). However, human-participant studies question the efficacy of these methods, particularly when the AI output is wrong. In this study, we collected and analyzed 156 human-generated text and saliency-based explanations collected in a question-answering task (N=40) and compared them empirically to state-of-the-art XAI explanations (integrated gradients, conservative LRP, and ChatGPT) in a human-participant study (N=136). Our findings show that participants found human saliency maps to be more helpful in explaining AI answers than machine saliency maps, but performance negatively correlated with trust in the AI model and explanations. This finding hints at the dilemma of AI errors in explanation, where helpful explanations can lead to lower task performance when they support wrong AI predictions.
Read more4/12/2024
0
Classification Metrics for Image Explanations: Towards Building Reliable XAI-Evaluations
Benjamin Fresz, Lena Lorcher, Marco Huber
Decision processes of computer vision models - especially deep neural networks - are opaque in nature, meaning that these decisions cannot be understood by humans. Thus, over the last years, many methods to provide human-understandable explanations have been proposed. For image classification, the most common group are saliency methods, which provide (super-)pixelwise feature attribution scores for input images. But their evaluation still poses a problem, as their results cannot be simply compared to the unknown ground truth. To overcome this, a slew of different proxy metrics have been defined, which are - as the explainability methods themselves - often built on intuition and thus, are possibly unreliable. In this paper, new evaluation metrics for saliency methods are developed and common saliency methods are benchmarked on ImageNet. In addition, a scheme for reliability evaluation of such metrics is proposed that is based on concepts from psychometric testing. The used code can be found at https://github.com/lelo204/ClassificationMetricsForImageExplanations .
Read more6/10/2024
0
Graphical Perception of Saliency-based Model Explanations
Yayan Zhao, Mingwei Li, Matthew Berger
In recent years, considerable work has been devoted to explaining predictive, deep learning-based models, and in turn how to evaluate explanations. An important class of evaluation methods are ones that are human-centered, which typically require the communication of explanations through visualizations. And while visualization plays a critical role in perceiving and understanding model explanations, how visualization design impacts human perception of explanations remains poorly understood. In this work, we study the graphical perception of model explanations, specifically, saliency-based explanations for visual recognition models. We propose an experimental design to investigate how human perception is influenced by visualization design, wherein we study the task of alignment assessment, or whether a saliency map aligns with an object in an image. Our findings show that factors related to visualization design decisions, the type of alignment, and qualities of the saliency map all play important roles in how humans perceive saliency-based visual explanations.
Read more6/13/2024