By explaining how humans would solve a given task, human rationales can provide strong learning signal for neural language models (NLMs). Explanation regularization (ER) aims to improve NLM generalization by pushing the NLM’s machine rationales (Which input tokens did the NLM focus on?) to align with human rationales (Which input tokens would humans focus on). Though prior works primarily study ER via in-distribution (ID) evaluation, out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization is often more critical in real-world scenarios, yet ER’s effect on OOD generalization has been underexplored.In this paper, we introduce ER-Test, a framework for evaluating ER models’ OOD generalization along three dimensions: unseen datasets, contrast set tests, and functional tests. Using ER-Test, we comprehensively analyze how ER models’ OOD generalization varies with the rationale alignment criterion (loss function), human rationale type (instance-level v/s task-level), number and choice of rationale-annotated instances, and time budget for rationale annotation. Across two tasks and six datasets, we show that ER has little impact on ID performance but yields large OOD performance gains, with the best ER criterion being task-dependent. Also, ER can improve OOD performance even with task-level or few human rationales. Finally, we find that rationale annotation is more time-efficient than label annotation for improving OOD performance. Our results with ER-Test help demonstrate ER’s utility and establish best practices for using ER effectively.

Contextual embeddings derived from transformer-based neural language models have shown state-of-the-art performance for various tasks such as question answering, sentiment analysis, and textual similarity in recent years. Extensive work shows how accurately such models can represent abstract, semantic information present in text. In this expository work, we explore a tangent direction and analyze such models’ performance on tasks that require a more granular level of representation. We focus on the problem of textual similarity from two perspectives: matching documents on a granular level (requiring embeddings to capture fine-grained attributes in the text), and an abstract level (requiring embeddings to capture overall textual semantics). We empirically demonstrate, across two datasets from different domains, that despite high performance in abstract document matching as expected, contextual embeddings are consistently (and at times, vastly) outperformed by simple baselines like TF-IDF for more granular tasks. We then propose a simple but effective method to incorporate TF-IDF into models that use contextual embeddings, achieving relative improvements of up to 36% on granular tasks.