Contrastive explanations clarify why an event occurred in contrast to another. They are inherently intuitive to humans to both produce and comprehend. We propose a method to produce contrastive explanations in the latent space, via a projection of th
e input representation, such that only the features that differentiate two potential decisions are captured. Our modification allows model behavior to consider only contrastive reasoning, and uncover which aspects of the input are useful for and against particular decisions. Our contrastive explanations can additionally answer for which label, and against which alternative label, is a given input feature useful. We produce contrastive explanations via both high-level abstract concept attribution and low-level input token/span attribution for two NLP classification benchmarks. Our findings demonstrate the ability of label-contrastive explanations to provide fine-grained interpretability of model decisions.
Ideally, people who navigate together in a complex indoor space share a mental model that facilitates explanation. This paper reports on a robot control system whose cognitive world model is based on spatial affordances that generalize over its perce
ptual data. Given a target, the control system formulates multiple plans, each with a model-relevant metric, and selects among them. As a result, it can provide readily understandable natural language about the robot's intentions and confidence, and generate diverse, contrastive explanations that reference the acquired spatial model. Empirical results in large, complex environments demonstrate the robot's ability to provide human-friendly explanations in natural language.
In this paper, we explore the construction of natural language explanations for news claims, with the goal of assisting fact-checking and news evaluation applications. We experiment with two methods: (1) an extractive method based on Biased TextRank
-- a resource-effective unsupervised graph-based algorithm for content extraction; and (2) an abstractive method based on the GPT-2 language model. We perform comparative evaluations on two misinformation datasets in the political and health news domains, and find that the extractive method shows the most promise.
An emerging line of research in Explainable NLP is the creation of datasets enriched with human-annotated explanations and rationales, used to build and evaluate models with step-wise inference and explanation generation capabilities. While human-ann
otated explanations are used as ground-truth for the inference, there is a lack of systematic assessment of their consistency and rigour. In an attempt to provide a critical quality assessment of Explanation Gold Standards (XGSs) for NLI, we propose a systematic annotation methodology, named Explanation Entailment Verification (EEV), to quantify the logical validity of human-annotated explanations. The application of EEV on three mainstream datasets reveals the surprising conclusion that a majority of the explanations, while appearing coherent on the surface, represent logically invalid arguments, ranging from being incomplete to containing clearly identifiable logical errors. This conclusion confirms that the inferential properties of explanations are still poorly formalised and understood, and that additional work on this line of research is necessary to improve the way Explanation Gold Standards are constructed.
Transformer-based neural networks offer very good classification performance across a wide range of domains, but do not provide explanations of their predictions. While several explanation methods, including SHAP, address the problem of interpreting
deep learning models, they are not adapted to operate on state-of-the-art transformer-based neural networks such as BERT. Another shortcoming of these methods is that their visualization of explanations in the form of lists of most relevant words does not take into account the sequential and structurally dependent nature of text. This paper proposes the TransSHAP method that adapts SHAP to transformer models including BERT-based text classifiers. It advances SHAP visualizations by showing explanations in a sequential manner, assessed by human evaluators as competitive to state-of-the-art solutions.
A question answering system that in addition to providing an answer provides an explanation of the reasoning that leads to that answer has potential advantages in terms of debuggability, extensibility, and trust. To this end, we propose QED, a lingui
stically informed, extensible framework for explanations in question answering. A QED explanation specifies the relationship between a question and answer according to formal semantic notions such as referential equality, sentencehood, and entailment. We describe and publicly release an expert-annotated dataset of QED explanations built upon a subset of the Google Natural Questions dataset, and report baseline models on two tasks---post- hoc explanation generation given an answer, and joint question answering and explanation generation. In the joint setting, a promising result suggests that training on a relatively small amount of QED data can improve question answering. In addition to describing the formal, language-theoretic motivations for the QED approach, we describe a large user study showing that the presence of QED explanations significantly improves the ability of untrained raters to spot errors made by a strong neural QA baseline.
