Explaining The Efficacy of Counterfactually Augmented Data
  In attempts to produce ML models less reliant on spurious patterns in NLP
datasets, researchers have recently proposed curating counterfactually
augmented data (CAD) via a human-in-the-loop process in which given some
documents and their (initial) labels, humans must revise the text to make a
counterfactual label applicable. Importantly, edits that are not necessary to
flip the applicable label are prohibited. Models trained on the augmented data
appear, empirically, to rely less on semantically irrelevant words and to
generalize better out of domain. While this work draws loosely on causal
thinking, the underlying causal model (even at an abstract level) and the
principles underlying the observed out-of-domain improvements remain unclear.
In this paper, we introduce a toy analog based on linear Gaussian models,
observing interesting relationships between causal models, measurement noise,
out-of-domain generalization, and reliance on spurious signals. Our analysis
provides some insights that help to explain the efficacy of CAD. Moreover, we
develop the hypothesis that while adding noise to causal features should
degrade both in-domain and out-of-domain performance, adding noise to
non-causal features should lead to relative improvements in out-of-domain
performance. This idea inspires a speculative test for determining whether a
feature attribution technique has identified the causal spans. If adding noise
(e.g., by random word flips) to the highlighted spans degrades both in-domain
and out-of-domain performance on a battery of challenge datasets, but adding
noise to the complement gives improvements out-of-domain, it suggests we have
identified causal spans. We present a large-scale empirical study comparing
spans edited to create CAD to those selected by attention and saliency maps.
Across numerous domains and models, we find that the hypothesized phenomenon is
pronounced for CAD.
