Can Language Models Explain Their Own Classification Behavior?
2405.07436
0
0
💬
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) perform well at a myriad of tasks, but explaining the processes behind this performance is a challenge. This paper investigates whether LLMs can give faithful high-level explanations of their own internal processes. To explore this, we introduce a dataset, ArticulateRules, of few-shot text-based classification tasks generated by simple rules. Each rule is associated with a simple natural-language explanation. We test whether models that have learned to classify inputs competently (both in- and out-of-distribution) are able to articulate freeform natural language explanations that match their classification behavior. Our dataset can be used for both in-context and finetuning evaluations. We evaluate a range of LLMs, demonstrating that articulation accuracy varies considerably between models, with a particularly sharp increase from GPT-3 to GPT-4. We then investigate whether we can improve GPT-3's articulation accuracy through a range of methods. GPT-3 completely fails to articulate 7/10 rules in our test, even after additional finetuning on correct explanations. We release our dataset, ArticulateRules, which can be used to test self-explanation for LLMs trained either in-context or by finetuning.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can provide faithful, high-level explanations of their own internal processes.
- The researchers introduce a dataset called ArticulateRules that contains text-based classification tasks generated by simple rules, each with a corresponding natural language explanation.
- The study tests whether LLMs that can competently classify inputs (both in and out of distribution) are able to articulate free-form natural language explanations that match their classification behavior.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models like GPT-3 and GPT-4 have shown impressive performance on a wide range of tasks, but it can be challenging to understand the internal processes that allow them to achieve this level of competence. This paper explores whether these models can actually explain their own decision-making in plain, natural language.
The researchers created a dataset called ArticulateRules that contains simple text-based classification tasks, each with a straightforward rule-based explanation. For example, a task might be to classify a sentence as "positive" or "negative" based on the presence of certain keywords. The researchers then tested whether language models that could accurately perform these classifications could also articulate the underlying rules in their own words.
By evaluating a range of different language models, the researchers found that the ability to provide clear, natural language explanations varied considerably. While newer models like GPT-4 showed a significant improvement in this skill compared to older ones like GPT-3, the older models often completely failed to accurately describe the reasoning behind their classifications, even after additional training.
This suggests that while large language models can achieve impressive performance, they may not have a deep, interpretable understanding of their own inner workings. Developing models that can both perform well and explain their decision-making process in plain terms remains an important challenge for the field of artificial intelligence.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a dataset called ArticulateRules that consists of text-based classification tasks governed by simple, interpretable rules. Each task is accompanied by a natural language explanation of the underlying rule.
The researchers then evaluate a range of large language models (LLMs), including GPT-3 and GPT-4, to see how well they can classify the inputs correctly and, crucially, articulate the rules that govern their classifications in free-form natural language. This is intended to test whether these models have a genuine, interpretable understanding of their own decision-making processes, or if they are simply pattern-matching without being able to explain their reasoning.
The results show that the ability to provide accurate natural language explanations varies considerably between different LLMs. While newer models like GPT-4 demonstrate a significant improvement in this regard compared to older ones like GPT-3, the older models often completely fail to correctly articulate the rules underlying their classifications, even after additional fine-tuning on the correct explanations.
The paper also explores various methods for trying to improve GPT-3's articulation accuracy, but finds that the model still struggles to provide faithful, high-level explanations of its internal processes. This suggests that developing LLMs that can both perform well on tasks and provide clear, interpretable explanations of their reasoning remains an important challenge in the field of artificial intelligence.
Critical Analysis
The research presented in this paper highlights an important limitation of current large language models - their inability to provide clear, natural language explanations of their own internal decision-making processes. While LLMs like GPT-3 and GPT-4 have demonstrated impressive performance on a wide range of tasks, the authors' findings suggest that this competence may not be underlaid by a genuine, interpretable understanding of the reasoning behind their outputs.
One potential concern is that the ArticulateRules dataset, while a useful benchmark, may not be fully representative of the types of tasks and explanations that would be needed in real-world applications. The rules and explanations used are relatively simple, and it's possible that more complex decision-making processes would pose an even greater challenge for these models.
Additionally, the paper focuses on evaluating the models' ability to articulate their reasoning, but does not explore whether this inability to explain translates to a lack of robust, generalizable understanding. It's conceivable that LLMs could perform well on tasks without being able to verbalize their internal logic. Further research would be needed to fully understand the relationship between a model's performance and its capacity for self-explanation.
Overall, this paper raises important questions about the interpretability and transparency of large language models, which will be crucial as these technologies become more widely adopted. Developing LLMs that can both perform well and explain their decision-making in plain terms remains an important challenge for the field of artificial intelligence.
Conclusion
This paper investigates the ability of large language models to provide faithful, high-level explanations of their own internal decision-making processes. By introducing the ArticulateRules dataset, the researchers have created a valuable tool for testing the interpretability and self-explanatory capabilities of these powerful AI systems.
The findings suggest that while newer models like GPT-4 show some improvement in this area, older models like GPT-3 often struggle to accurately articulate the reasoning behind their classifications, even after additional training. This raises important questions about the true depth of understanding these language models possess, and highlights the need for continued research into developing LLMs that can both perform well and explain their decision-making in plain terms.
As large language models become increasingly prominent in a wide range of applications, ensuring their transparency and interpretability will be crucial for building trust and accountability in these technologies. The insights from this paper provide a valuable starting point for further exploration of this important challenge.
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
💬
Towards Uncovering How Large Language Model Works: An Explainability Perspective
Haiyan Zhao, Fan Yang, Bo Shen, Himabindu Lakkaraju, Mengnan Du
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) have led to breakthroughs in language tasks, yet the internal mechanisms that enable their remarkable generalization and reasoning abilities remain opaque. This lack of transparency presents challenges such as hallucinations, toxicity, and misalignment with human values, hindering the safe and beneficial deployment of LLMs. This paper aims to uncover the mechanisms underlying LLM functionality through the lens of explainability. First, we review how knowledge is architecturally composed within LLMs and encoded in their internal parameters via mechanistic interpretability techniques. Then, we summarize how knowledge is embedded in LLM representations by leveraging probing techniques and representation engineering. Additionally, we investigate the training dynamics through a mechanistic perspective to explain phenomena such as grokking and memorization. Lastly, we explore how the insights gained from these explanations can enhance LLM performance through model editing, improve efficiency through pruning, and better align with human values.
4/17/2024
💬
Large Language Models Cannot Explain Themselves
Advait Sarkar
0
0
Large language models can be prompted to produce text. They can also be prompted to produce explanations of their output. But these are not really explanations, because they do not accurately reflect the mechanical process underlying the prediction. The illusion that they reflect the reasoning process can result in significant harms. These explanations can be valuable, but for promoting critical thinking rather than for understanding the model. I propose a recontextualisation of these explanations, using the term exoplanations to draw attention to their exogenous nature. I discuss some implications for design and technology, such as the inclusion of appropriate guardrails and responses when models are prompted to generate explanations.
5/8/2024
💬
Can Large Language Models Follow Concept Annotation Guidelines? A Case Study on Scientific and Financial Domains
Marcio Fonseca, Shay B. Cohen
0
0
Although large language models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable capacity to leverage in-context demonstrations, it is still unclear to what extent they can learn new concepts or facts from ground-truth labels. To address this question, we examine the capacity of instruction-tuned LLMs to follow in-context concept guidelines for sentence labeling tasks. We design guidelines that present different types of factual and counterfactual concept definitions, which are used as prompts for zero-shot sentence classification tasks. Our results show that although concept definitions consistently help in task performance, only the larger models (with 70B parameters or more) have limited ability to work under counterfactual contexts. Importantly, only proprietary models such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can recognize nonsensical guidelines, which we hypothesize is due to more sophisticated alignment methods. Finally, we find that Falcon-180B-chat is outperformed by Llama-2-70B-chat is most cases, which indicates that careful fine-tuning is more effective than increasing model scale. Altogether, our simple evaluation method reveals significant gaps in concept understanding between the most capable open-source language models and the leading proprietary APIs.
6/28/2024
Is ChatGPT a Better Explainer than My Professor?: Evaluating the Explanation Capabilities of LLMs in Conversation Compared to a Human Baseline
Grace Li, Milad Alshomary, Smaranda Muresan
0
0
Explanations form the foundation of knowledge sharing and build upon communication principles, social dynamics, and learning theories. We focus specifically on conversational approaches for explanations because the context is highly adaptive and interactive. Our research leverages previous work on explanatory acts, a framework for understanding the different strategies that explainers and explainees employ in a conversation to both explain, understand, and engage with the other party. We use the 5-Levels dataset was constructed from the WIRED YouTube series by Wachsmuth et al., and later annotated by Booshehri et al. with explanatory acts. These annotations provide a framework for understanding how explainers and explainees structure their response when crafting a response. With the rise of generative AI in the past year, we hope to better understand the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and how they can augment expert explainer's capabilities in conversational settings. To achieve this goal, the 5-Levels dataset (We use Booshehri et al.'s 2023 annotated dataset with explanatory acts.) allows us to audit the ability of LLMs in engaging in explanation dialogues. To evaluate the effectiveness of LLMs in generating explainer responses, we compared 3 different strategies, we asked human annotators to evaluate 3 different strategies: human explainer response, GPT4 standard response, GPT4 response with Explanation Moves.
6/27/2024