An Evaluation of Explanation Methods for Black-Box Detectors of Machine-Generated Text
<|reference_start|>An Evaluation of Explanation Methods for Black-Box Detectors of Machine-Generated Text: The increasing difficulty to distinguish language-model-generated from human-written text has led to the development of detectors of machine-generated text (MGT). However, in many contexts, a black-box prediction is not sufficient, it is equally important to know on what grounds a detector made that prediction. Explanation methods that estimate feature importance promise to provide indications of which parts of an input are used by classifiers for prediction. However, the quality of different explanation methods has not previously been assessed for detectors of MGT. This study conducts the first systematic evaluation of explanation quality for this task. The dimensions of faithfulness and stability are assessed with five automated experiments, and usefulness is evaluated in a user study. We use a dataset of ChatGPT-generated and human-written documents, and pair predictions of three existing language-model-based detectors with the corresponding SHAP, LIME, and Anchor explanations. We find that SHAP performs best in terms of faithfulness, stability, and in helping users to predict the detector's behavior. In contrast, LIME, perceived as most useful by users, scores the worst in terms of user performance at predicting the detectors' behavior.<|reference_end|>
@article{schoenegger2024an,
    title={An Evaluation of Explanation Methods for Black-Box Detectors of
  Machine-Generated Text},
    author={Loris Schoenegger, Yuxi Xia, Benjamin Roth},
    journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14252},
    year={2024},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    eprint={2408.14252},
    primaryClass={cs.LG cs.CL}
}