A Chain-of-Thought Is as Strong as Its Weakest Link: A Benchmark for Verifiers of Reasoning Chains

Prompting language models to provide step-by-step answers (e.g., "Chain-of-Thought") is the prominent approach for complex reasoning tasks, where more accurate reasoning chains typically improve downstream task performance. Recent literature discusses automatic methods to verify reasoning steps to evaluate and improve their correctness. However, no fine-grained step-level datasets are available to enable thorough evaluation of such verification methods, hindering progress in this direction. We introduce Reveal: Reasoning Verification Evaluation, a new dataset to benchmark automatic verifiers of complex Chain-of-Thought reasoning in open-domain question answering settings. Reveal includes comprehensive labels for the relevance, attribution to evidence passages, and logical correctness of each reasoning step in a language model's answer, across a wide variety of datasets and state-of-the-art language models.

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Tool-Assisted Generation Strategies

A growing area of research investigates augmenting language models with tools (e.g., search engines, calculators) to overcome their shortcomings (e.g., missing or incorrect knowledge, incorrect logical inferences). Various few-shot tool-usage strategies have been proposed. However, there is no systematic and fair comparison across different strategies, or between these strategies and strong baselines that do not leverage tools. We conduct an extensive empirical analysis, finding that (1) across various datasets, example difficulty levels, and models, strong no-tool baselines are competitive to tool-assisted strategies, implying that effectively using tools with in-context demonstrations is a difficult unsolved problem; (2) for knowledge-retrieval tasks, strategies that *refine* incorrect outputs with tools outperform strategies that retrieve relevant information *ahead of* or *during generation*; (3) tool-assisted strategies are expensive in the number of tokens they require to work -- incurring additional costs by orders of magnitude -- which does not translate into significant improvement in performance. Overall, our findings suggest that few-shot tool integration is still an open challenge, emphasizing the need for comprehensive evaluations of future strategies to accurately assess their *benefits* and *costs*.

Unpacking Human-AI Interaction in Safety-Critical Industries: A Systematic Literature Review

Ensuring quality human-AI interaction (HAII) in safety-critical industries is essential. Failure to do so can lead to catastrophic and deadly consequences. Despite this urgency, what little research there is on HAII is fragmented and inconsistent. We present here a survey of that literature and recommendations for research best practices that will improve the field. We divided our investigation into the following research areas: (1) terms used to describe HAII, (2) primary roles of AI-enabled systems, (3) factors that influence HAII, and (4) how HAII is measured. Additionally, we described the capabilities and maturity of the AI-enabled systems used in safety-critical industries discussed in these articles. We found that no single term is used across the literature to describe HAII and some terms have multiple meanings. According to our literature, five factors influence HAII: user characteristics and background (e.g., user personality, perceptions), AI interface and features (e.g., interactive UI design), AI output (e.g., accuracy, actionable recommendations), explainability and interpretability (e.g., level of detail, user understanding), and usage of AI (e.g., heterogeneity of environments and user needs). HAII is most commonly measured with user-related subjective metrics (e.g., user perception, trust, and attitudes), and AI-assisted decision-making is the most common primary role of AI-enabled systems. Based on this review, we conclude that there are substantial research gaps in HAII. Researchers and developers need to codify HAII terminology, involve users throughout the AI lifecycle (especially during development), and tailor HAII in safety-critical industries to the users and environments.

Stop Uploading Test Data in Plain Text: Practical Strategies for Mitigating Data Contamination by Evaluation Benchmarks

Data contamination has become especially prevalent and challenging with the rise of models pretrained on very large, automatically-crawled corpora. For closed models, the training data becomes a trade secret, and even for open models, it is not trivial to ascertain whether a particular test instance has been compromised. Strategies such as live leaderboards with hidden answers, or using test data which is guaranteed to be unseen, are expensive and become fragile with time. Assuming that all relevant actors value clean test data and will cooperate to mitigate data contamination, what can be done? We propose three strategies that can make a difference: (1) Test data made public should be encrypted with a public key and licensed to disallow derivative distribution; (2) demand training exclusion controls from closed API holders, and protect your test data by refusing to evaluate until demands are met; (3) in case of test data based on internet text, avoid data which appears with its solution on the internet, and release the context of internet-derived data along with the data. These strategies are practical and can be effective in preventing data contamination and allowing trustworthy evaluation of models' capabilities.

Neighboring Words Affect Human Interpretation of Saliency Explanations

Word-level saliency explanations ("heat maps over words") are often used to communicate feature-attribution in text-based models. Recent studies found that superficial factors such as word length can distort human interpretation of the communicated saliency scores. We conduct a user study to investigate how the marking of a word's neighboring words affect the explainee's perception of the word's importance in the context of a saliency explanation. We find that neighboring words have significant effects on the word's importance rating. Concretely, we identify that the influence changes based on neighboring direction (left vs. right) and a-priori linguistic and computational measures of phrases and collocations (vs. unrelated neighboring words). Our results question whether text-based saliency explanations should be continued to be communicated at word level, and inform future research on alternative saliency explanation methods.

Trends in Explainable AI (XAI) Literature

The XAI literature is decentralized, both in terminology and in publication venues, but recent years saw the community converge around keywords that make it possible to more reliably discover papers automatically. We use keyword search using the SemanticScholar API and manual curation to collect a well-formatted and reasonably comprehensive set of 5199 XAI papers, available at https://github.com/alonjacovi/XAI-Scholar . We use this collection to clarify and visualize trends about the size and scope of the literature, citation trends, cross-field trends, and collaboration trends. Overall, XAI is becoming increasingly multidisciplinary, with relative growth in papers belonging to increasingly diverse (non-CS) scientific fields, increasing cross-field collaborative authorship, increasing cross-field citation activity. The collection can additionally be used as a paper discovery engine, by retrieving XAI literature which is cited according to specific constraints (for example, papers that are influential outside of their field, or influential to non-XAI research).

Human Interpretation of Saliency-based Explanation Over Text

While a lot of research in explainable AI focuses on producing effective explanations, less work is devoted to the question of how people understand and interpret the explanation. In this work, we focus on this question through a study of saliency-based explanations over textual data. Feature-attribution explanations of text models aim to communicate which parts of the input text were more influential than others towards the model decision. Many current explanation methods, such as gradient-based or Shapley value-based methods, provide measures of importance which are well-understood mathematically. But how does a person receiving the explanation (the explainee) comprehend it? And does their understanding match what the explanation attempted to communicate? We empirically investigate the effect of various factors of the input, the feature-attribution explanation, and visualization procedure, on laypeople's interpretation of the explanation. We query crowdworkers for their interpretation on tasks in English and German, and fit a GAMM model to their responses considering the factors of interest. We find that people often mis-interpret the explanations: superficial and unrelated factors, such as word length, influence the explainees' importance assignment despite the explanation communicating importance directly. We then show that some of this distortion can be attenuated: we propose a method to adjust saliencies based on model estimates of over- and under-perception, and explore bar charts as an alternative to heatmap saliency visualization. We find that both approaches can attenuate the distorting effect of specific factors, leading to better-calibrated understanding of the explanation.

Diagnosing AI Explanation Methods with Folk Concepts of Behavior

When explaining AI behavior to humans, how is the communicated information being comprehended by the human explainee, and does it match what the explanation attempted to communicate? When can we say that an explanation is explaining something? We aim to provide an answer by leveraging theory of mind literature about the folk concepts that humans use to understand behavior. We establish a framework of social attribution by the human explainee, which describes the function of explanations: the concrete information that humans comprehend from them. Specifically, effective explanations should be coherent (communicate information which generalizes to other contrast cases), complete (communicating an explicit contrast case, objective causes, and subjective causes), and interactive (surfacing and resolving contradictions to the generalization property through iterations). We demonstrate that many XAI mechanisms can be mapped to folk concepts of behavior. This allows us to uncover their modes of failure that prevent current methods from explaining effectively, and what is necessary to enable coherent explanations.