Numerous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of pretrained contextualized language models such as BERT and T5 for ad-hoc search. However, it is not well-understood why these methods are so effective, what makes some variants more effective than others, and what pitfalls they may have. We present a new comprehensive framework for Analyzing the Behavior of Neural IR ModeLs (ABNIRML), which includes new types of diagnostic tests that allow us to probe several characteristics---such as sensitivity to word order---that are not addressed by previous techniques. To demonstrate the value of the framework, we conduct an extensive empirical study that yields insights into the factors that contribute to the neural model's gains, and identify potential unintended biases the models exhibit. We find evidence that recent neural ranking models have fundamentally different characteristics from prior ranking models. For instance, these models can be highly influenced by altered document word order, sentence order and inflectional endings. They can also exhibit unexpected behaviors when additional content is added to documents, or when documents are expressed with different levels of fluency or formality. We find that these differences can depend on the architecture and not just the underlying language model.

ABNIRML: Analyzing the Behavior of Neural IR Models.

With the ever-increasing popularity and applications of graph neural networks, several proposals have been made to interpret and understand the decisions of a GNN model. Explanations for a GNN model differ in principle from other input settings. It is important to attribute the decision to input features and other related instances connected by the graph structure. We find that the previous explanation generation approaches that maximize the mutual information between the label distribution produced by the GNN model and the explanation to be restrictive. Specifically, existing approaches do not enforce explanations to be predictive, sparse, or robust to input perturbations. 
In this paper, we lay down some of the fundamental principles that an explanation method for GNNs should follow and introduce a metric fidelity as a measure of the explanation's effectiveness. We propose a novel approach Zorro based on the principles from rate-distortion theory that uses a simple combinatorial procedure to optimize for fidelity. Extensive experiments on real and synthetic datasets reveal that Zorro produces sparser, stable, and more faithful explanations than existing GNN explanation approaches.

Zorro: Valid, Sparse, and Stable Explanations in Graph Neural Networks.

Recently, pre-training methods tailored for IR tasks have achieved great success. However, as the mechanisms behind the performance improvement remain under-investigated, the interpretability and robustness of these pre-trained models still need to be improved. Axiomatic IR aims to identify a set of desirable properties expressed mathematically as formal constraints to guide the design of ranking models. Existing studies have already shown that considering certain axioms may help improve the effectiveness and interpretability of IR models. However, there still lack efforts of incorporating these IR axioms into pre-training methodologies. To shed light on this research question, we propose a novel pre-training method with \underlineA xiomatic \underlineRe gularization for ad hoc \underlineS earch (ARES). In the ARES framework, a number of existing IR axioms are re-organized to generate training samples to be fitted in the pre-training process. These training samples then guide neural rankers to learn the desirable ranking properties. Compared to existing pre-training approaches, ARES is more intuitive and explainable. Experimental results on multiple publicly available benchmark datasets have shown the effectiveness of ARES in both full-resource and low-resource (e.g., zero-shot and few-shot) settings. An intuitive case study also indicates that ARES has learned useful knowledge that existing pre-trained models (e.g., BERT and PROP) fail to possess. This work provides insights into improving the interpretability of pre-trained models and the guidance of incorporating IR axioms or human heuristics into pre-training methods.

/pdf/axiomatically-regularized-pre-training-for-ad-hoc-search-2y59e2ju.pdf

Axiomatically Regularized Pre-training for Ad hoc Search

Explainable information retrieval is an emerging research area aiming to make transparent and trustworthy information retrieval systems. Given the increasing use of complex machine learning models in search systems, explainability is essential in building and auditing responsible information retrieval models. This survey fills a vital gap in the otherwise topically diverse literature of explainable information retrieval. It categorizes and discusses recent explainability methods developed for different application domains in information retrieval, providing a common framework and unifying perspectives. In addition, it reflects on the common concern of evaluating explanations and highlights open challenges and opportunities.

Explainable Information Retrieval: A Survey

This paper proposes a novel approach towards better interpretability of a trained text-based ranking model in a post-hoc manner. A popular approach for post-hoc interpretability text ranking models are based on locally approximating the model behavior using a simple ranker. Since rankings have multiple relevance factors and are aggregations of predictions, existing approaches that use a single ranker might not be sufficient to approximate a complex model, resulting in low fidelity. In this paper, we overcome this problem by considering multiple simple rankers to better approximate the entire ranking list from a black-box ranking model. We pose the problem of local approximation as a Generalized Preference Coverage (GPC) problem that incorporates multiple simple rankers towards the listwise explanation of ranking models. Our method Multiplex uses a linear programming approach to judiciously extract the explanation terms, so that to explain the entire ranking list. We conduct extensive experiments on a variety of ranking models and report fidelity improvements of 37%–54% over existing competitors. We finally compare explanations in terms of multiple relevance factors and topic aspects to better understand the logic of ranking decisions, showcasing our explainers’ practical utility. 

Listwise Explanations for Ranking Models Using Multiple Explainers

Recently, neural networks have been successfully employed to improve upon state-of-the-art effectiveness in ad-hoc retrieval tasks via machine-learned ranking functions. While neural retrieval models grow in complexity and impact, little is understood about their correspondence with well-studied IR principles. Recent work on interpretability in machine learning has provided tools and techniques to understand neural models in general, yet there has been little progress towards explaining ranking models. We investigate whether one can explain the behavior of neural ranking models in terms of their congruence with well understood principles of document ranking by using established theories from axiomatic~IR. Axiomatic analysis of information retrieval models has formalized a set of constraints on ranking decisions that reasonable retrieval models should fulfill. We operationalize this axiomatic thinking to reproduce rankings based on combinations of elementary constraints. This allows us to investigate to what extent the ranking decisions of neural rankers can be explained in terms of the existing retrieval axioms, and which axioms apply in which situations. Our experimental study considers a comprehensive set of axioms over several representative neural rankers. While the existing axioms can already explain the particularly confident ranking decisions rather well, future work should extend the axiom set to also cover the other still "unexplainable" neural IR rank decisions.

Towards Axiomatic Explanations for Neural Ranking Models

Recently, neural networks have been successfully employed to improve upon state-of-the-art performance in ad-hoc retrieval tasks via machine-learned ranking functions. While neural retrieval models grow in complexity and impact, little is understood about their correspondence with well-studied IR principles. Recent work on interpretability in machine learning has provided tools and techniques to understand neural models in general, yet there has been little progress towards explaining ranking models. 
We investigate whether one can explain the behavior of neural ranking models in terms of their congruence with well understood principles of document ranking by using established theories from axiomatic IR. Axiomatic analysis of information retrieval models has formalized a set of constraints on ranking decisions that reasonable retrieval models should fulfill. We operationalize this axiomatic thinking to reproduce rankings based on combinations of elementary constraints. This allows us to investigate to what extent the ranking decisions of neural rankers can be explained in terms of retrieval axioms, and which axioms apply in which situations. Our experimental study considers a comprehensive set of axioms over several representative neural rankers. While the existing axioms can already explain the particularly confident ranking decisions rather well, future work should extend the axiom set to also cover the other still "unexplainable" neural IR rank decisions.

Learning-to-rank (LTR) is a class of supervised learning techniques that apply to ranking problems dealing with a large number of features. The popularity and widespread application of LTR models in prioritizing information in a variety of domains makes their scrutability vital in today's landscape of fair and transparent learning systems. However, limited work exists that deals with interpreting the decisions of learning systems that output rankings. In this paper we propose a model agnostic local explanation method that seeks to identify a small subset of input features as explanation to the ranked output for a given query. We introduce new notions of validity and completeness of explanations specifically for rankings, based on the presence or absence of selected features, as a way of measuring goodness. We devise a novel optimization problem to maximize validity directly and propose greedy algorithms as solutions. In extensive quantitative experiments we show that our approach outperforms other model agnostic explanation approaches across pointwise, pairwise and listwise LTR models in validity while not compromising on completeness.

Extracting per Query Valid Explanations for Blackbox Learning-to-Rank Models

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Jaspreet Singh

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Towards Axiomatic Explanations for Neural Ranking Models

Towards Axiomatic Explanations for Neural Ranking Models

Extracting per Query Valid Explanations for Blackbox Learning-to-Rank Models