Counterfactuals As a Means for Evaluating Faithfulness of Attribution Methods in Autoregressive Language Models
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the use of counterfactuals as a means to evaluate the faithfulness of attribution methods in autoregressive language models.
- Counterfactuals are used to assess how changes in the input affect the model's output, providing insights into the model's reasoning process.
- The authors propose a framework for generating and evaluating counterfactuals to assess the faithfulness of attribution methods, such as saliency maps and influence functions.
Plain English Explanation
In this paper, the researchers investigate how counterfactuals can be used to evaluate the faithfulness of attribution methods in autoregressive language models. Attribution methods are techniques that try to explain how a language model makes its predictions, by identifying the most important parts of the input that contributed to the output.
The researchers argue that counterfactuals - changes to the input that result in different outputs - can provide valuable insights into the model's reasoning process. By analyzing how the model's output changes when certain parts of the input are modified, the researchers can assess how faithful the attribution methods are in capturing the model's true decision-making logic.
The paper presents a framework for generating and evaluating counterfactuals to assess the faithfulness of attribution methods, such as saliency maps and influence functions. This allows the researchers to better understand how the language model is actually making its predictions, rather than relying solely on the explanations provided by the attribution methods.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a framework for using counterfactuals to evaluate the faithfulness of attribution methods in autoregressive language models. The key elements of the framework are:
-
Counterfactual Generation: The researchers develop a method to generate counterfactuals - changes to the input text that result in different model outputs. This involves identifying the most influential tokens in the input and systematically modifying them to observe the changes in the model's predictions.
-
Faithfulness Evaluation: The researchers then use the generated counterfactuals to assess the faithfulness of attribution methods, such as saliency maps and influence functions. By comparing the changes in the model's outputs caused by the counterfactuals to the explanations provided by the attribution methods, the researchers can determine how well the attribution methods capture the model's true decision-making process.
-
Experimental Design: The researchers evaluate their framework on a range of autoregressive language models, including GPT-2 and BERT, and across different tasks, such as text generation and sentiment analysis. They compare the faithfulness of various attribution methods and provide insights into the strengths and limitations of each approach.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a compelling approach for using counterfactuals to assess the faithfulness of attribution methods in autoregressive language models. The researchers acknowledge that while attribution methods can provide valuable insights, they may not always accurately reflect the model's true decision-making logic. By incorporating counterfactuals, the researchers introduce a more rigorous way to evaluate the reliability of these explanations.
One potential limitation of the research is that the counterfactual generation process may not capture all the nuances of how language models make decisions. The researchers note that their approach relies on heuristics to identify influential tokens, and there may be more complex relationships between the input and output that are not fully accounted for.
Additionally, the researchers focus on a limited set of attribution methods and language models. Further research could explore the use of counterfactuals with a wider range of explanation techniques and model architectures, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of their faithfulness.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel framework for using counterfactuals to evaluate the faithfulness of attribution methods in autoregressive language models. By generating counterfactuals and assessing how well they align with the explanations provided by attribution methods, the researchers offer a more rigorous approach to understanding the inner workings of these complex models.
The findings of this study have important implications for the development and deployment of language models, as they highlight the need for more reliable and transparent explanation methods. As language models become increasingly ubiquitous in various applications, the ability to trust and interpret their decisions will be crucial for ensuring their safe and responsible use.
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
Counterfactuals As a Means for Evaluating Faithfulness of Attribution Methods in Autoregressive Language Models
Sepehr Kamahi, Yadollah Yaghoobzadeh
Despite the widespread adoption of autoregressive language models, explainability evaluation research has predominantly focused on span infilling and masked language models (MLMs). Evaluating the faithfulness of an explanation method -- how accurately the method explains the inner workings and decision-making of the model -- is very challenging because it is very hard to separate the model from its explanation. Most faithfulness evaluation techniques corrupt or remove some input tokens considered important according to a particular attribution (feature importance) method and observe the change in the model's output. This approach creates out-of-distribution inputs for causal language models (CLMs) due to their training objective of next token prediction. In this study, we propose a technique that leverages counterfactual generation to evaluate the faithfulness of attribution methods for autoregressive language modeling scenarios. Our technique creates fluent and in-distribution counterfactuals that makes evaluation protocol more reliable. Code is available at https://github.com/Sepehr-Kamahi/faith
Read more8/22/2024
💬
0
Are self-explanations from Large Language Models faithful?
Andreas Madsen, Sarath Chandar, Siva Reddy
Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at many tasks and will even explain their reasoning, so-called self-explanations. However, convincing and wrong self-explanations can lead to unsupported confidence in LLMs, thus increasing risk. Therefore, it's important to measure if self-explanations truly reflect the model's behavior. Such a measure is called interpretability-faithfulness and is challenging to perform since the ground truth is inaccessible, and many LLMs only have an inference API. To address this, we propose employing self-consistency checks to measure faithfulness. For example, if an LLM says a set of words is important for making a prediction, then it should not be able to make its prediction without these words. While self-consistency checks are a common approach to faithfulness, they have not previously been successfully applied to LLM self-explanations for counterfactual, feature attribution, and redaction explanations. Our results demonstrate that faithfulness is explanation, model, and task-dependent, showing self-explanations should not be trusted in general. For example, with sentiment classification, counterfactuals are more faithful for Llama2, feature attribution for Mistral, and redaction for Falcon 40B.
Read more5/20/2024
0
Local Explanations and Self-Explanations for Assessing Faithfulness in black-box LLMs
Christos Fragkathoulas, Odysseas S. Chlapanis
This paper introduces a novel task to assess the faithfulness of large language models (LLMs) using local perturbations and self-explanations. Many LLMs often require additional context to answer certain questions correctly. For this purpose, we propose a new efficient alternative explainability technique, inspired by the commonly used leave-one-out approach. Using this approach, we identify the sufficient and necessary parts for the LLM to generate correct answers, serving as explanations. We propose a metric for assessing faithfulness that compares these crucial parts with the self-explanations of the model. Using the Natural Questions dataset, we validate our approach, demonstrating its effectiveness in explaining model decisions and assessing faithfulness.
Read more9/24/2024
0
Evaluating the Reliability of Self-Explanations in Large Language Models
Korbinian Randl, John Pavlopoulos, Aron Henriksson, Tony Lindgren
This paper investigates the reliability of explanations generated by large language models (LLMs) when prompted to explain their previous output. We evaluate two kinds of such self-explanations - extractive and counterfactual - using three state-of-the-art LLMs (2B to 8B parameters) on two different classification tasks (objective and subjective). Our findings reveal, that, while these self-explanations can correlate with human judgement, they do not fully and accurately follow the model's decision process, indicating a gap between perceived and actual model reasoning. We show that this gap can be bridged because prompting LLMs for counterfactual explanations can produce faithful, informative, and easy-to-verify results. These counterfactuals offer a promising alternative to traditional explainability methods (e.g. SHAP, LIME), provided that prompts are tailored to specific tasks and checked for validity.
Read more7/22/2024