Adversarial Attack for Explanation Robustness of Rationalization Models
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Researchers investigate the robustness of rationalization models to adversarial attacks.
- Rationalization models are AI systems that provide explanations for their decisions.
- Adversarial attacks aim to fool these models by making small, imperceptible changes to the input.
- The paper explores how adversarial attacks can impact the explanations provided by rationalization models.
Plain English Explanation
Imagine you have an AI system that can make decisions and then explain why it made those decisions. For example, the AI might decide to approve or deny a loan application, and then provide an explanation for its decision.
The researchers in this paper wanted to see how easy it is to trick these explanation-providing AI systems. They did this by making small, almost imperceptible changes to the inputs the AI system sees. These small changes are called "adversarial attacks."
The key idea is that even though the changes to the input are tiny, they could cause the AI to make a different decision and provide a completely different explanation for that decision. This is problematic because it means the explanations provided by the AI system may not be trustworthy or reliable.
The researchers set out to better understand this problem and find ways to make these explanation-providing AI systems more robust to these adversarial attacks. By making the AI systems more resistant to adversarial attacks, the hope is that the explanations they provide will be more reliable and trustworthy.
Technical Explanation
The paper focuses on rationalization models, which are AI systems designed to not only make decisions but also provide explanations for those decisions. The researchers investigate the robustness of these rationalization models to adversarial attacks.
Adversarial attacks are small, carefully crafted changes to the input of an AI system that can cause it to make incorrect decisions. The researchers hypothesized that these adversarial attacks could also impact the explanations provided by rationalization models, potentially making the explanations unreliable.
To test this, the researchers developed a novel adversarial attack specifically targeted at rationalization models. They evaluated this attack on several rationalization models across different tasks and found that the attacks were often successful in producing misleading explanations, even when the models' decisions remained unchanged.
The researchers also explored trade-offs between model performance, explanation quality, and adversarial robustness, finding that improving one aspect can sometimes come at the expense of another.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides valuable insights into the vulnerability of rationalization models to adversarial attacks and the challenges in developing explanation-providing AI systems that are both accurate and robust.
One potential limitation of the research is the use of synthetic, rather than real-world, data in some of the experiments. While this allows for more controlled testing, it may not fully capture the complexities of real-world scenarios.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the underlying mechanisms by which adversarial attacks impact explanations. Further research could investigate the specific ways in which small input changes translate to significant changes in the model's explanations.
Despite these minor caveats, the paper makes an important contribution to the field of explainable AI by highlighting the need for more robust and trustworthy explanation-providing systems. The insights and techniques presented in this work can inform the development of future rationalization models that are better equipped to withstand adversarial attacks and provide reliable explanations.
Conclusion
This paper sheds light on a crucial issue in the field of explainable AI: the vulnerability of rationalization models to adversarial attacks. By developing a novel attack method and evaluating its impact on various rationalization models, the researchers have demonstrated the fragility of current explanation-providing systems and the need for more robust solutions.
The findings of this work have significant implications for the deployment of AI systems in high-stakes domains, where the trustworthiness and reliability of explanations are paramount. As the use of AI continues to expand, addressing the challenge of adversarial robustness in rationalization models will be crucial to ensuring the transparency and accountability of these systems.
The research presented in this paper lays the groundwork for future work in this area, paving the way for the development of more resilient and trustworthy explanation-providing AI systems that can better withstand the challenges posed by adversarial attacks.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Adversarial Attack for Explanation Robustness of Rationalization Models
Yuankai Zhang, Lingxiao Kong, Haozhao Wang, Ruixuan Li, Jun Wang, Yuhua Li, Wei Liu
Rationalization models, which select a subset of input text as rationale-crucial for humans to understand and trust predictions-have recently emerged as a prominent research area in eXplainable Artificial Intelligence. However, most of previous studies mainly focus on improving the quality of the rationale, ignoring its robustness to malicious attack. Specifically, whether the rationalization models can still generate high-quality rationale under the adversarial attack remains unknown. To explore this, this paper proposes UAT2E, which aims to undermine the explainability of rationalization models without altering their predictions, thereby eliciting distrust in these models from human users. UAT2E employs the gradient-based search on triggers and then inserts them into the original input to conduct both the non-target and target attack. Experimental results on five datasets reveal the vulnerability of rationalization models in terms of explanation, where they tend to select more meaningless tokens under attacks. Based on this, we make a series of recommendations for improving rationalization models in terms of explanation.
Read more8/21/2024
0
Exploring the Trade-off Between Model Performance and Explanation Plausibility of Text Classifiers Using Human Rationales
Lucas E. Resck, Marcos M. Raimundo, Jorge Poco
Saliency post-hoc explainability methods are important tools for understanding increasingly complex NLP models. While these methods can reflect the model's reasoning, they may not align with human intuition, making the explanations not plausible. In this work, we present a methodology for incorporating rationales, which are text annotations explaining human decisions, into text classification models. This incorporation enhances the plausibility of post-hoc explanations while preserving their faithfulness. Our approach is agnostic to model architectures and explainability methods. We introduce the rationales during model training by augmenting the standard cross-entropy loss with a novel loss function inspired by contrastive learning. By leveraging a multi-objective optimization algorithm, we explore the trade-off between the two loss functions and generate a Pareto-optimal frontier of models that balance performance and plausibility. Through extensive experiments involving diverse models, datasets, and explainability methods, we demonstrate that our approach significantly enhances the quality of model explanations without causing substantial (sometimes negligible) degradation in the original model's performance.
Read more4/5/2024
0
Enhancing adversarial robustness in Natural Language Inference using explanations
Alexandros Koulakos, Maria Lymperaiou, Giorgos Filandrianos, Giorgos Stamou
The surge of state-of-the-art Transformer-based models has undoubtedly pushed the limits of NLP model performance, excelling in a variety of tasks. We cast the spotlight on the underexplored task of Natural Language Inference (NLI), since models trained on popular well-suited datasets are susceptible to adversarial attacks, allowing subtle input interventions to mislead the model. In this work, we validate the usage of natural language explanation as a model-agnostic defence strategy through extensive experimentation: only by fine-tuning a classifier on the explanation rather than premise-hypothesis inputs, robustness under various adversarial attacks is achieved in comparison to explanation-free baselines. Moreover, since there is no standard strategy of testing the semantic validity of the generated explanations, we research the correlation of widely used language generation metrics with human perception, in order for them to serve as a proxy towards robust NLI models. Our approach is resource-efficient and reproducible without significant computational limitations.
Read more9/12/2024
0
Towards a Framework for Evaluating Explanations in Automated Fact Verification
Neema Kotonya, Francesca Toni
As deep neural models in NLP become more complex, and as a consequence opaque, the necessity to interpret them becomes greater. A burgeoning interest has emerged in rationalizing explanations to provide short and coherent justifications for predictions. In this position paper, we advocate for a formal framework for key concepts and properties about rationalizing explanations to support their evaluation systematically. We also outline one such formal framework, tailored to rationalizing explanations of increasingly complex structures, from free-form explanations to deductive explanations, to argumentative explanations (with the richest structure). Focusing on the automated fact verification task, we provide illustrations of the use and usefulness of our formalization for evaluating explanations, tailored to their varying structures.
Read more5/21/2024