XCrowd

Abstract

Relation extraction methods are currently dominated by deep neural models, which capture complex statistical patterns while being brittle and vulnerable to perturbations in data and distribution. Explainability techniques offer a means for understanding such vulnerabilities, and thus represent an opportunity to mitigate future errors; yet, existing methods are limited to describing what the model 'knows', while totally failing at explaining what the model does not know. This paper presents a new method for diagnosing model predictions and detecting potential inaccuracies. Our approach involves breaking down the problem into two components: (i) determining the necessary knowledge the model should possess for accurate prediction, through human annotations, and (ii) assessing the actual knowledge possessed by the model, using explainable AI methods (XAI). We apply our method to several relation extraction tasks and conduct an empirical study leveraging human specifications of what a model should know and does not know. Results show that human workers are capable of accurately specifying the model should-knows, despite variations in the specification, that the alignment between what a model really knows and what it should know is indeed indicative of model accuracy, and that the unknowns identified through our methods allow to foresee future errors that may or may not have been observed otherwise.