Modern deep learning models are notoriously opaque, which has motivated the development of methods for interpreting how deep models predict.This goal is usually approached with attribution method, which assesses the influence of features on model predictions. As an explanation method, the evaluation criteria of attribution methods is how accurately it reflects the actual reasoning process of the model (faithfulness). Meanwhile, since the reasoning process of deep models is inaccessible, researchers design various evaluation methods to demonstrate their arguments.However, some crucial logic traps in these evaluation methods are ignored in most works, causing inaccurate evaluation and unfair comparison.This paper systematically reviews existing methods for evaluating attribution scores and summarizes the logic traps in these methods.We further conduct experiments to demonstrate the existence of each logic trap.Through both theoretical and experimental analysis, we hope to increase attention on the inaccurate evaluation of attribution scores. Moreover, with this paper, we suggest stopping focusing on improving performance under unreliable evaluation systems and starting efforts on reducing the impact of proposed logic traps.

Forcing the answer of the Question Answering (QA) task to be a single text span might be restrictive since the answer can be multiple spans in the context. Moreover, we found that multi-span answers often appear with two characteristics when building the QA system for a real-world application. First, multi-span answers might be caused by users lacking domain knowledge and asking ambiguous questions, which makes the question need to be answered with conditions. Second, there might be hierarchical relations among multiple answer spans. Some recent span-extraction QA datasets include multi-span samples, but they only contain unconditional and parallel answers, which cannot be used to tackle this problem. To bridge the gap, we propose a new task: conditional question answering with hierarchical multi-span answers, where both the hierarchical relations and the conditions need to be extracted. Correspondingly, we introduce CMQA, a Conditional Multiple-span Chinese Question Answering dataset to study the new proposed task. The final release of CMQA consists of 7,861 QA pairs and 113,089 labels, where all samples contain multi-span answers, 50.4% of samples are conditional, and 56.6% of samples are hierarchical. CMQA can serve as a benchmark to study the new proposed task and help study building QA systems for real-world applications. The low performance of models drawn from related literature shows that the new proposed task is challenging for the community to solve.

Machine Reading Comprehension (MRC), which requires a machine to answer questions given the relevant documents, is an important way to test machines’ ability to understand human language. Multiple-choice MRC is one of the most studied tasks in MRC due to the convenience of evaluation and the flexibility of answer format. Post-hoc interpretation aims to explain a trained model and reveal how the model arrives at the prediction. One of the most important interpretation forms is to attribute model decisions to input features. Based on post-hoc interpretation methods, we assess attributions of paragraphs in multiple-choice MRC and improve the model by punishing the illogical attributions. Our method can improve model performance without any external information and model structure change. Furthermore, we also analyze how and why such a self-training method works.