By computing the rank correlation between attention weights and feature-additive explanation methods, previous analyses either invalidate or support the role of attention-based explanations as a faithful and plausible measure of salience. To investigate whether this approach is appropriate, we compare LIME, Integrated Gradients, DeepLIFT, Grad-SHAP, Deep-SHAP, and attention-based explanations, applied to two neural architectures trained on single- and pair-sequence language tasks. In most cases, we find that none of our chosen methods agree. Based on our empirical observations and theoretical objections, we conclude that rank correlation does not measure the quality of feature-additive methods. Practitioners should instead use the numerous and rigorous diagnostic methods proposed by the community.
翻译:通过计算注意权重和特性附加解释方法之间的等级相关性,以前的分析要么否定或支持基于注意的解释的作用,作为可靠和可信的突出度衡量标准。为了调查这一方法是否合适,我们比较LIME、综合梯度、DeepLIFT、Grad-SHAP、Deep-SHAP和基于注意的解释,这些解释适用于在单一和对等后语言任务方面受过培训的两个神经结构。在多数情况下,我们发现我们所选择的方法中没有一个是一致的。根据我们的经验观察和理论反对意见,我们的结论是,等级相关性不能衡量特性增加方法的质量。相反,从业者应该使用社区建议的众多和严格的诊断方法。