Recent years have seen a flourishing of neural keyphrase generation (KPG) works, including the release of several large-scale datasets and a host of new models to tackle them. Model performance on KPG tasks has increased significantly with evolving d
eep learning research. However, there lacks a comprehensive comparison among different model designs, and a thorough investigation on related factors that may affect a KPG system's generalization performance. In this empirical study, we aim to fill this gap by providing extensive experimental results and analyzing the most crucial factors impacting the generalizability of KPG models. We hope this study can help clarify some of the uncertainties surrounding the KPG task and facilitate future research on this topic.
Saliency methods are widely used to interpret neural network predictions, but different variants of saliency methods often disagree even on the interpretations of the same prediction made by the same model. In these cases, how do we identify when are
these interpretations trustworthy enough to be used in analyses? To address this question, we conduct a comprehensive and quantitative evaluation of saliency methods on a fundamental category of NLP models: neural language models. We evaluate the quality of prediction interpretations from two perspectives that each represents a desirable property of these interpretations: plausibility and faithfulness. Our evaluation is conducted on four different datasets constructed from the existing human annotation of syntactic and semantic agreements, on both sentence-level and document-level. Through our evaluation, we identified various ways saliency methods could yield interpretations of low quality. We recommend that future work deploying such methods to neural language models should carefully validate their interpretations before drawing insights.
