An Empirical Study on Explanations in Out-of-Domain Settings
This addresses the reliability of explanations for users in NLP applications, but it is incremental as it extends existing evaluation methods to new settings.
The paper tackles the problem of evaluating explanation faithfulness and model performance in out-of-domain settings for NLP, finding that post-hoc explanations can be misleadingly faithful and that select-then-predict models perform comparably to full-text models.
Recent work in Natural Language Processing has focused on developing approaches that extract faithful explanations, either via identifying the most important tokens in the input (i.e. post-hoc explanations) or by designing inherently faithful models that first select the most important tokens and then use them to predict the correct label (i.e. select-then-predict models). Currently, these approaches are largely evaluated on in-domain settings. Yet, little is known about how post-hoc explanations and inherently faithful models perform in out-of-domain settings. In this paper, we conduct an extensive empirical study that examines: (1) the out-of-domain faithfulness of post-hoc explanations, generated by five feature attribution methods; and (2) the out-of-domain performance of two inherently faithful models over six datasets. Contrary to our expectations, results show that in many cases out-of-domain post-hoc explanation faithfulness measured by sufficiency and comprehensiveness is higher compared to in-domain. We find this misleading and suggest using a random baseline as a yardstick for evaluating post-hoc explanation faithfulness. Our findings also show that select-then predict models demonstrate comparable predictive performance in out-of-domain settings to full-text trained models.