Is explainability a false promise? This debate has emerged from the insufficient evidence that explanations help people in situations they are introduced for. More human-centered, application-grounded evaluations of explanations are needed to settle this. Yet, with no established guidelines for such studies in NLP, researchers accustomed to standardized proxy evaluations must discover appropriate measurements, tasks, datasets, and sensible models for human-AI teams in their studies. To aid with this, we first review existing metrics suitable for application-grounded evaluation. We then establish criteria to select appropriate datasets, and using them, we find that only 4 out of over 50 datasets available for explainability research in NLP meet them. We then demonstrate the importance of reassessing the state of the art to form and study human-AI teams: teaming people with models for certain tasks might only now start to make sense, and for others, it remains unsound. Finally, we present the exemplar studies of human-AI decision-making for one of the identified tasks — verifying the correctness of a legal claim given a contract. Our results show that providing AI predictions, with or without explanations, does not cause decision makers to speed up their work without compromising performance. We argue for revisiting the setup of human-AI teams and improving automatic deferral of instances to AI, where explanations could play a useful role.

*Do larger and more performant models resolve NLP’s longstanding robustness issues?* We investigate this question using over 20 models of different sizes spanning different architectural choices and pretraining objectives. We conduct evaluations using (a) out-of-domain and challenge test sets, (b) behavioral testing with CheckLists, (c) contrast sets, and (d) adversarial inputs. Our analysis reveals that not all out-of-domain tests provide insight into robustness. Evaluating with CheckLists and contrast sets shows significant gaps in model performance; merely scaling models does not make them adequately robust. Finally, we point out that current approaches for adversarial evaluations of models are themselves problematic: they can be easily thwarted, and in their current forms, do not represent a sufficiently deep probe of model robustness. We conclude that not only is the question of robustness in NLP as yet unresolved, but even some of the approaches to measure robustness need to be reassessed.

Explanation has long been a part of communications, where humans use language to elucidate each other and transmit information about the mechanisms of events. There have been numerous works that study the structures of the explanations and their utility to humans. At the same time, explanation relates to a collection of research directions in natural language processing (and more broadly, computer vision and machine learning) where researchers develop computational approaches to explain the (usually deep neural network) models. Explanation has received rising attention. In recent months, the advance of large language models (LLMs) provides unprecedented opportunities to leverage their reasoning abilities, both as tools to produce explanations and as the subjects of explanation analysis. On the other hand, the sheer sizes and the opaque nature of LLMs introduce challenges to the explanation methods. In this tutorial, we intend to review these opportunities and challenges of explanations in the era of LLMs, connect lines of research previously studied by different research groups, and hopefully spark thoughts of new research directions

Large neural networks can now generate jokes, but do they really “understand” humor? We challenge AI models with three tasks derived from the New Yorker Cartoon Caption Contest: matching a joke to a cartoon, identifying a winning caption, and explaining why a winning caption is funny. These tasks encapsulate progressively more sophisticated aspects of “understanding” a cartoon; key elements are the complex, often surprising relationships between images and captions and the frequent inclusion of indirect and playful allusions to human experience and culture. We investigate both multimodal and language-only models: the former are challenged with the cartoon images directly, while the latter are given multifaceted descriptions of the visual scene to simulate human-level visual understanding. We find that both types of models struggle at all three tasks. For example, our best multimodal models fall 30 accuracy points behind human performance on the matching task, and, even when provided ground-truth visual scene descriptors, human-authored explanations are preferred head-to-head over the best machine-authored ones (few-shot GPT-4) in more than 2/3 of cases. We release models, code, leaderboard, and corpus, which includes newly-gathered annotations describing the image’s locations/entities, what’s unusual in the scene, and an explanation of the joke.

Contrast set consistency is a robustness measurement that evaluates the rate at which a model correctly responds to all instances in a bundle of minimally different examples relying on the same knowledge. To draw additional insights, we propose to complement consistency with relative consistency—the probability that an equally accurate model would surpass the consistency of the proposed model, given a distribution over possible consistencies. Models with 100% relative consistency have reached a consistency peak for their accuracy. We reflect on prior work that reports consistency in contrast sets and observe that relative consistency can alter the assessment of a model’s consistency compared to another. We anticipate that our proposed measurement and insights will influence future studies aiming to promote consistent behavior in models.

Rationalization is fundamental to human reasoning and learning. NLP models trained to produce rationales along with predictions, called self-rationalization models, have been investigated for their interpretability and utility to end-users. However, the extent to which training with human-written rationales facilitates learning remains an under-explored question. We ask whether training models to self-rationalize can aid in their learning to solve tasks for the right reasons. Specifically, we evaluate how training self-rationalization models with free-text rationales affects robustness to spurious correlations in fine-tuned encoder-decoder and decoder-only models of six different sizes. We evaluate robustness to spurious correlations by measuring performance on 1) manually annotated challenge datasets and 2) subsets of original test sets where reliance on spurious correlations would fail to produce correct answers. We find that while self-rationalization can improve robustness to spurious correlations in low-resource settings, it tends to hurt robustness in higher-resource settings. Furthermore, these effects depend on model family and size, as well as on rationale content. Together, our results suggest that explainability can come at the cost of robustness; thus, appropriate care should be taken when training self-rationalizing models with the goal of creating more trustworthy models.

The full power of human language-based communication cannot be realized without negation. All human languages have some form of negation. Despite this, negation remains a challenging phenomenon for current natural language understanding systems. To facilitate the future development of models that can process negation effectively, we present CONDAQA, the first English reading comprehension dataset which requires reasoning about the implications of negated statements in paragraphs. We collect paragraphs with diverse negation cues, then have crowdworkers ask questions about the implications of the negated statement in the passage. We also have workers make three kinds of edits to the passage—paraphrasing the negated statement, changing the scope of the negation, and reversing the negation—resulting in clusters of question-answer pairs that are difficult for models to answer with spurious shortcuts. CONDAQA features 14,182 question-answer pairs with over 200 unique negation cues and is challenging for current state-of-the-art models. The best performing model on CONDAQA (UnifiedQA-v2-3b) achieves only 42% on our consistency metric, well below human performance which is 81%. We release our dataset, along with fully-finetuned, few-shot, and zero-shot evaluations, to facilitate the development of future NLP methods that work on negated language.

Self-rationalization models that predict task labels and generate free-text elaborations for their predictions could enable more intuitive interaction with NLP systems. These models are, however, currently trained with a large amount of human-written free-text explanations for each task which hinders their broader usage. We propose to study a more realistic setting of self-rationalization using few training examples. We present FEB—a standardized collection of four existing English-language datasets and associated metrics. We identify the right prompting approach by extensively exploring natural language prompts on FEB. Then, by using this prompt and scaling the model size, we demonstrate that making progress on few-shot self-rationalization is possible. We show there is still ample room for improvement in this task: the average plausibility of generated explanations assessed by human annotators is at most 51% (with GPT-3), while plausibility of human explanations is 76%. We hope that FEB and our proposed approach will spur the community to take on the few-shot self-rationalization challenge.

Combining the visual modality with pretrained language models has been surprisingly effective for simple descriptive tasks such as image captioning. More general text generation however remains elusive. We take a step back and ask: How do these models work for more complex generative tasks, i.e. conditioning on both text and images? Are multimodal models simply visually adapted language models, or do they combine they reason jointly over modalities?We investigate these questions in the context of self-rationalization (jointly generating task labels/answers and free-text explanations) of three tasks: (i) visual question answering in VQA-X, (ii) visual commonsense reasoning in VCR, and (iii) visual-textual entailment in E-SNLI-VE. We show that recent unimodal advances, CLIP image representations and scaling of language models, do not consistently improveself-rationalization in multimodal tasks. We find that no single model type works universally best across tasks, datasets, and finetuning data sizes. Our findings motivate the need for novel general backbones that move text generation from images and text beyond image captioning.

Large language models have led to remarkable progress on many NLP tasks, and researchers are turning to ever-larger text corpora to train them. Some of the largest corpora available are made by scraping significant portions of the internet, and are frequently introduced with only minimal documentation. In this work we provide some of the first documentation for the Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus (C4; Raffel et al., 2020), a dataset created by applying a set of filters to a single snapshot of Common Crawl. We begin by investigating where the data came from, and find a significant amount of text from unexpected sources like patents and US military websites. Then we explore the content of the text itself, and find machine-generated text (e.g., from machine translation systems) and evaluation examples from other benchmark NLP datasets. To understand the impact of the filters applied to create this dataset, we evaluate the text that was removed, and show that blocklist filtering disproportionately removes text from and about minority individuals. Finally, we conclude with some recommendations for how to created and document web-scale datasets from a scrape of the internet.

In interpretable NLP, we require faithful rationales that reflect the model’s decision-making process for an explained instance. While prior work focuses on extractive rationales (a subset of the input words), we investigate their less-studied counterpart: free-text natural language rationales. We demonstrate that *pipelines*, models for faithful rationalization on information-extraction style tasks, do not work as well on “reasoning” tasks requiring free-text rationales. We turn to models that *jointly* predict and rationalize, a class of widely used high-performance models for free-text rationalization. We investigate the extent to which the labels and rationales predicted by these models are associated, a necessary property of faithful explanation. Via two tests, *robustness equivalence* and *feature importance agreement*, we find that state-of-the-art T5-based joint models exhibit desirable properties for explaining commonsense question-answering and natural language inference, indicating their potential for producing faithful free-text rationales.

Language models pretrained on text from a wide variety of sources form the foundation of today’s NLP. In light of the success of these broad-coverage models, we investigate whether it is still helpful to tailor a pretrained model to the domain of a target task. We present a study across four domains (biomedical and computer science publications, news, and reviews) and eight classification tasks, showing that a second phase of pretraining in-domain (domain-adaptive pretraining) leads to performance gains, under both high- and low-resource settings. Moreover, adapting to the task’s unlabeled data (task-adaptive pretraining) improves performance even after domain-adaptive pretraining. Finally, we show that adapting to a task corpus augmented using simple data selection strategies is an effective alternative, especially when resources for domain-adaptive pretraining might be unavailable. Overall, we consistently find that multi-phase adaptive pretraining offers large gains in task performance.

Natural language rationales could provide intuitive, higher-level explanations that are easily understandable by humans, complementing the more broadly studied lower-level explanations based on gradients or attention weights. We present the first study focused on generating natural language rationales across several complex visual reasoning tasks: visual commonsense reasoning, visual-textual entailment, and visual question answering. The key challenge of accurate rationalization is comprehensive image understanding at all levels: not just their explicit content at the pixel level, but their contextual contents at the semantic and pragmatic levels. We present RationaleˆVT Transformer, an integrated model that learns to generate free-text rationales by combining pretrained language models with object recognition, grounded visual semantic frames, and visual commonsense graphs. Our experiments show that free-text rationalization is a promising research direction to complement model interpretability for complex visual-textual reasoning tasks. In addition, we find that integration of richer semantic and pragmatic visual features improves visual fidelity of rationales.

High-quality and large-scale data are key to success for AI systems. However, large-scale data annotation efforts are often confronted with a set of common challenges: (1) designing a user-friendly annotation interface; (2) training enough annotators efficiently; and (3) reproducibility. To address these problems, we introduce CROWDAQ, an open-source platform that standardizes the data collection pipeline with customizable user-interface components, automated annotator qualification, and saved pipelines in a re-usable format. We show that CROWDAQ simplifies data annotation significantly on a diverse set of data collection use cases and we hope it will be a convenient tool for the community.

Machine comprehension of texts longer than a single sentence often requires coreference resolution. However, most current reading comprehension benchmarks do not contain complex coreferential phenomena and hence fail to evaluate the ability of models to resolve coreference. We present a new crowdsourced dataset containing more than 24K span-selection questions that require resolving coreference among entities in over 4.7K English paragraphs from Wikipedia. Obtaining questions focused on such phenomena is challenging, because it is hard to avoid lexical cues that shortcut complex reasoning. We deal with this issue by using a strong baseline model as an adversary in the crowdsourcing loop, which helps crowdworkers avoid writing questions with exploitable surface cues. We show that state-of-the-art reading comprehension models perform significantly worse than humans on this benchmark—the best model performance is 70.5 F1, while the estimated human performance is 93.4 F1.

For over a decade, machine learning has been used to extract opinion-holder-target structures from text to answer the question “Who expressed what kind of sentiment towards what?”. Recent neural approaches do not outperform the state-of-the-art feature-based models for Opinion Role Labeling (ORL). We suspect this is due to the scarcity of labeled training data and address this issue using different multi-task learning (MTL) techniques with a related task which has substantially more data, i.e. Semantic Role Labeling (SRL). We show that two MTL models improve significantly over the single-task model for labeling of both holders and targets, on the development and the test sets. We found that the vanilla MTL model, which makes predictions using only shared ORL and SRL features, performs the best. With deeper analysis we determine what works and what might be done to make further improvements for ORL.

Resolving abstract anaphora is an important, but difficult task for text understanding. Yet, with recent advances in representation learning this task becomes a more tangible aim. A central property of abstract anaphora is that it establishes a relation between the anaphor embedded in the anaphoric sentence and its (typically non-nominal) antecedent. We propose a mention-ranking model that learns how abstract anaphors relate to their antecedents with an LSTM-Siamese Net. We overcome the lack of training data by generating artificial anaphoric sentence–antecedent pairs. Our model outperforms state-of-the-art results on shell noun resolution. We also report first benchmark results on an abstract anaphora subset of the ARRAU corpus. This corpus presents a greater challenge due to a mixture of nominal and pronominal anaphors and a greater range of confounders. We found model variants that outperform the baselines for nominal anaphors, without training on individual anaphor data, but still lag behind for pronominal anaphors. Our model selects syntactically plausible candidates and – if disregarding syntax – discriminates candidates using deeper features.

Modal verbs have different interpretations depending on their context. Their sense categories – epistemic, deontic and dynamic – provide important dimensions of meaning for the interpretation of discourse. Previous work on modal sense classification achieved relatively high performance using shallow lexical and syntactic features drawn from small-size annotated corpora. Due to the restricted empirical basis, it is difficult to assess the particular difficulties of modal sense classification and the generalization capacity of the proposed models. In this work we create large-scale, high-quality annotated corpora for modal sense classification using an automatic paraphrase-driven projection approach. Using the acquired corpora, we investigate the modal sense classification task from different perspectives.