arXiv:1805.05492cs.CL
Did the Model Understand the Question?
Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.
Abstract
We analyze state-of-the-art deep learning models for three tasks: question answering on (1) images, (2) tables, and (3) passages of text. Using the notion of \emph{attribution} (word importance), we find that these deep networks often ignore important question terms. Leveraging such behavior, we perturb questions to craft a variety of adversarial examples. Our strongest attacks drop the accuracy of a visual question answering model from $61.1\%$ to $19\%$, and that of a tabular question answering model from $33.5\%$ to $3.3\%$. Additionally, we show how attributions can strengthen attacks proposed by Jia and Liang (2017) on paragraph comprehension models. Our results demonstrate that attributions can augment standard measures of accuracy and empower investigation of model performance. When a model is accurate but for the wrong reasons, attributions can surface erroneous logic in the model that indicates inadequacies in the test data.
So, from the perspective I have within the subfield I work in, explainable AI (XAI), we're seeing a bunch of fascinating developments. First, as you mentioned, Rudin continues to prove that the reason for using AI/ML is that we don't understand the problem well enough; otherwise…
babel_View on HNParent context