Evaluating the Explainability of Neural Rankers

Fuente: arXiv
Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Pandian, Saran, Ganguly, Debasis, MacAvaney, Sean
Format: Preprint
Veröffentlicht: 2024
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
_version_ 1866910353235902464
author Pandian, Saran
Ganguly, Debasis
MacAvaney, Sean
author_facet Pandian, Saran
Ganguly, Debasis
MacAvaney, Sean
contents Information retrieval models have witnessed a paradigm shift from unsupervised statistical approaches to feature-based supervised approaches to completely data-driven ones that make use of the pre-training of large language models. While the increasing complexity of the search models have been able to demonstrate improvements in effectiveness (measured in terms of relevance of top-retrieved results), a question worthy of a thorough inspection is - "how explainable are these models?", which is what this paper aims to evaluate. In particular, we propose a common evaluation platform to systematically evaluate the explainability of any ranking model (the explanation algorithm being identical for all the models that are to be evaluated). In our proposed framework, each model, in addition to returning a ranked list of documents, also requires to return a list of explanation units or rationales for each document. This meta-information from each document is then used to measure how locally consistent these rationales are as an intrinsic measure of interpretability - one that does not require manual relevance assessments. Additionally, as an extrinsic measure, we compute how relevant these rationales are by leveraging sub-document level relevance assessments. Our findings show a number of interesting observations, such as sentence-level rationales are more consistent, an increase in complexity mostly leads to less consistent explanations, and that interpretability measures offer a complementary dimension of evaluation of IR systems because consistency is not well-correlated with nDCG at top ranks.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2403_01981
institution arXiv
publishDate 2024
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle Evaluating the Explainability of Neural Rankers
Pandian, Saran
Ganguly, Debasis
MacAvaney, Sean
Information Retrieval
Information retrieval models have witnessed a paradigm shift from unsupervised statistical approaches to feature-based supervised approaches to completely data-driven ones that make use of the pre-training of large language models. While the increasing complexity of the search models have been able to demonstrate improvements in effectiveness (measured in terms of relevance of top-retrieved results), a question worthy of a thorough inspection is - "how explainable are these models?", which is what this paper aims to evaluate. In particular, we propose a common evaluation platform to systematically evaluate the explainability of any ranking model (the explanation algorithm being identical for all the models that are to be evaluated). In our proposed framework, each model, in addition to returning a ranked list of documents, also requires to return a list of explanation units or rationales for each document. This meta-information from each document is then used to measure how locally consistent these rationales are as an intrinsic measure of interpretability - one that does not require manual relevance assessments. Additionally, as an extrinsic measure, we compute how relevant these rationales are by leveraging sub-document level relevance assessments. Our findings show a number of interesting observations, such as sentence-level rationales are more consistent, an increase in complexity mostly leads to less consistent explanations, and that interpretability measures offer a complementary dimension of evaluation of IR systems because consistency is not well-correlated with nDCG at top ranks.
title Evaluating the Explainability of Neural Rankers
topic Information Retrieval
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.01981