Rationales in the form of manually annotated input spans usually serve as ground truth when evaluating explainability methods in NLP. They are, however, time-consuming and often biased by the annotation process. In this paper, we debate whether human gaze, in the form of webcam-based eye-tracking recordings, poses a valid alternative when evaluating importance scores. We evaluate the additional information provided by gaze data, such as total reading times, gaze entropy, and decoding accuracy with respect to human rationale annotations. We compare WebQAmGaze, a multilingual dataset for information-seeking QA, with attention and explainability-based importance scores for 4 different multilingual Transformer-based language models (mBERT, distil-mBERT, XLMR, and XLMR-L) and 3 languages (English, Spanish, and German). Our pipeline can easily be applied to other tasks and languages. Our findings suggest that gaze data offers valuable linguistic insights that could be leveraged to infer task difficulty and further show a comparable ranking of explainability methods to that of human rationales.

Contrastive explanations, where one decision is explained *in contrast to another*, are supposed to be closer to how humans explain a decision than non-contrastive explanations, where the decision is not necessarily referenced to an alternative. This claim has never been empirically validated. We analyze four English text-classification datasets (SST2, DynaSent, BIOS and DBpedia-Animals). We fine-tune and extract explanations from three different models (RoBERTa, GTP-2, and T5), each in three different sizes and apply three post-hoc explainability methods (LRP, GradientxInput, GradNorm). We furthermore collect and release human rationale annotations for a subset of 100 samples from the BIOS dataset for contrastive and non-contrastive settings. A cross-comparison between model-based rationales and human annotations, both in contrastive and non-contrastive settings, yields a high agreement between the two settings for models as well as for humans. Moreover, model-based explanations computed in both settings align equally well with human rationales. Thus, we empirically find that humans do not necessarily explain in a contrastive manner.

Learned self-attention functions in state-of-the-art NLP models often correlate with human attention. We investigate whether self-attention in large-scale pre-trained language models is as predictive of human eye fixation patterns during task-reading as classical cognitive models of human attention. We compare attention functions across two task-specific reading datasets for sentiment analysis and relation extraction. We find the predictiveness of large-scale pre-trained self-attention for human attention depends on ‘what is in the tail’, e.g., the syntactic nature of rare contexts. Further, we observe that task-specific fine-tuning does not increase the correlation with human task-specific reading. Through an input reduction experiment we give complementary insights on the sparsity and fidelity trade-off, showing that lower-entropy attention vectors are more faithful.