References & Citations
Computer Science > Computation and Language
Title: Double Trouble: How to not explain a text classifier's decisions using counterfactuals synthesized by masked language models?
(Submitted on 22 Oct 2021 (v1), last revised 10 Oct 2022 (this version, v4))
Abstract: A principle behind dozens of attribution methods is to take the prediction difference between before-and-after an input feature (here, a token) is removed as its attribution. A popular Input Marginalization (IM) method (Kim et al., 2020) uses BERT to replace a token, yielding more plausible counterfactuals. While Kim et al. (2020) reported that IM is effective, we find this conclusion not convincing as the DeletionBERT metric used in their paper is biased towards IM. Importantly, this bias exists in Deletion-based metrics, including Insertion, Sufficiency, and Comprehensiveness. Furthermore, our rigorous evaluation using 6 metrics and 3 datasets finds no evidence that IM is better than a Leave-One-Out (LOO) baseline. We find two reasons why IM is not better than LOO: (1) deleting a single word from the input only marginally reduces a classifier's accuracy; and (2) a highly predictable word is always given near-zero attribution, regardless of its true importance to the classifier. In contrast, making LIME samples more natural via BERT consistently improves LIME accuracy under several ROAR metrics.
Submission history
From: Anh Nguyen [view email][v1] Fri, 22 Oct 2021 17:22:05 GMT (79kb,D)
[v2] Mon, 23 May 2022 14:51:07 GMT (98kb,D)
[v3] Tue, 16 Aug 2022 16:14:43 GMT (98kb,D)
[v4] Mon, 10 Oct 2022 20:46:04 GMT (100kb,D)
Link back to: arXiv, form interface, contact.