Evaluating Readability and Faithfulness of Concept-based Explanations
2404.18533
0
0
Abstract
Despite the surprisingly high intelligence exhibited by Large Language Models (LLMs), we are somehow intimidated to fully deploy them into real-life applications considering their black-box nature. Concept-based explanations arise as a promising avenue for explaining what the LLMs have learned, making them more transparent to humans. However, current evaluations for concepts tend to be heuristic and non-deterministic, e.g. case study or human evaluation, hindering the development of the field. To bridge the gap, we approach concept-based explanation evaluation via faithfulness and readability. We first introduce a formal definition of concept generalizable to diverse concept-based explanations. Based on this, we quantify faithfulness via the difference in the output upon perturbation. We then provide an automatic measure for readability, by measuring the coherence of patterns that maximally activate a concept. This measure serves as a cost-effective and reliable substitute for human evaluation. Finally, based on measurement theory, we describe a meta-evaluation method for evaluating the above measures via reliability and validity, which can be generalized to other tasks as well. Extensive experimental analysis has been conducted to validate and inform the selection of concept evaluation measures.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper evaluates concept-based explanations of language models, focusing on two key aspects: faithfulness and readability.
- The researchers investigate how well these explanations capture the true reasoning of the model and how understandable they are to human users.
- They conduct experiments on a range of language tasks to assess the performance of different concept-based explanation methods.
Plain English Explanation
Language models, such as GPT-3, are powerful AI systems that can generate human-like text. However, it can be challenging to understand how these models arrive at their outputs. <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/concept-induction-using-llms-user-experiment-assessment">Concept-based explanations</a> aim to provide a more interpretable way of understanding the model's reasoning by linking its decisions to high-level conceptual terms.
In this paper, the researchers evaluate the effectiveness of these concept-based explanations. They look at two key factors:
-
Faithfulness: How well do the explanations capture the true reasoning of the language model? Do they accurately reflect the model's internal decision-making process?
-
Readability: How understandable are the explanations to human users? Can people easily comprehend the concepts and how they relate to the model's outputs?
The researchers conduct experiments on a variety of language tasks, such as text classification and question answering, to assess the performance of different concept-based explanation methods. They compare the explanations to the model's actual behavior to measure faithfulness, and also gather feedback from human participants to evaluate readability.
Technical Explanation
The researchers focus on concept-based explanations, which aim to interpret language models by linking their decisions to high-level conceptual terms. They evaluate two key aspects of these explanations:
-
Faithfulness: The researchers measure how well the explanations capture the true reasoning of the language model. They compare the explanations to the model's actual behavior on a range of language tasks, including text classification and question answering.
-
Readability: The researchers also assess how understandable the concept-based explanations are to human users. They gather feedback from participants to evaluate the clarity and interpretability of the explanations.
The researchers experiment with different concept-based explanation methods, including <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/knowledge-graphs-empirical-concept-retrieval">knowledge-graph-based approaches</a> and <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/global-concept-explanations-graphs-by-contrastive-learning">contrastive learning-based approaches</a>. They compare the performance of these methods to <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/evaluating-consistency-reasoning-capabilities-large-language-models">other explanation techniques</a>, such as attribution-based methods.
The results of the experiments provide insights into the strengths and limitations of concept-based explanations. The researchers find that while these explanations can be more interpretable than some other methods, they may not always be fully faithful to the language model's internal reasoning. The paper also discusses the importance of <a href="https://aimodels.fyi/papers/arxiv/estimation-concept-explanations-should-be-uncertainty-aware">accounting for uncertainty in concept-based explanations</a>.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough evaluation of concept-based explanations, but there are a few potential limitations to consider:
-
Task Generalization: The experiments focused on a limited set of language tasks, and it's unclear how well the findings would generalize to a broader range of applications.
-
Human Evaluation: While the readability assessment involved human participants, the sample size and diversity of the participants could be expanded to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the explanations' interpretability.
-
Explanation Fidelity: The researchers acknowledge that the concept-based explanations may not always be fully faithful to the language model's internal reasoning. Further research could explore ways to improve the fidelity of these explanations.
-
Uncertainty Handling: The paper highlights the importance of accounting for uncertainty in concept-based explanations, but more work is needed to develop robust methods for quantifying and communicating this uncertainty to users.
Despite these potential limitations, the paper makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of concept-based explanations and their role in interpreting language models. The insights from this research can inform the development of more transparent and trustworthy AI systems.
Conclusion
This paper presents a comprehensive evaluation of concept-based explanations for language models, focusing on the key aspects of faithfulness and readability. The researchers conduct experiments across a range of language tasks, providing valuable insights into the strengths and limitations of these explanatory approaches.
The findings suggest that concept-based explanations can offer a more interpretable way of understanding language models, but there are still challenges in ensuring the explanations fully capture the models' internal reasoning. The paper also highlights the importance of accounting for uncertainty in these explanations to improve their reliability and usefulness for human users.
Overall, this research contributes to the ongoing efforts to develop more transparent and trustworthy AI systems, which is crucial as language models become increasingly prevalent in various applications. The insights from this study can inform the design of future explainable AI systems and guide further research in this important area.
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
Concept Induction using LLMs: a user experiment for assessment
Adrita Barua, Cara Widmer, Pascal Hitzler
0
0
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) poses a significant challenge in providing transparent and understandable insights into complex AI models. Traditional post-hoc algorithms, while useful, often struggle to deliver interpretable explanations. Concept-based models offer a promising avenue by incorporating explicit representations of concepts to enhance interpretability. However, existing research on automatic concept discovery methods is often limited by lower-level concepts, costly human annotation requirements, and a restricted domain of background knowledge. In this study, we explore the potential of a Large Language Model (LLM), specifically GPT-4, by leveraging its domain knowledge and common-sense capability to generate high-level concepts that are meaningful as explanations for humans, for a specific setting of image classification. We use minimal textual object information available in the data via prompting to facilitate this process. To evaluate the output, we compare the concepts generated by the LLM with two other methods: concepts generated by humans and the ECII heuristic concept induction system. Since there is no established metric to determine the human understandability of concepts, we conducted a human study to assess the effectiveness of the LLM-generated concepts. Our findings indicate that while human-generated explanations remain superior, concepts derived from GPT-4 are more comprehensible to humans compared to those generated by ECII.
4/19/2024
๐ฌ
Are self-explanations from Large Language Models faithful?
Andreas Madsen, Sarath Chandar, Siva Reddy
0
0
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.
5/20/2024
๐ฌ
FaithLM: Towards Faithful Explanations for Large Language Models
Yu-Neng Chuang, Guanchu Wang, Chia-Yuan Chang, Ruixiang Tang, Shaochen Zhong, Fan Yang, Mengnan Du, Xuanting Cai, Xia Hu
0
0
Large Language Models (LLMs) have become proficient in addressing complex tasks by leveraging their extensive internal knowledge and reasoning capabilities. However, the black-box nature of these models complicates the task of explaining their decision-making processes. While recent advancements demonstrate the potential of leveraging LLMs to self-explain their predictions through natural language (NL) explanations, their explanations may not accurately reflect the LLMs' decision-making process due to a lack of fidelity optimization on the derived explanations. Measuring the fidelity of NL explanations is a challenging issue, as it is difficult to manipulate the input context to mask the semantics of these explanations. To this end, we introduce FaithLM to explain the decision of LLMs with NL explanations. Specifically, FaithLM designs a method for evaluating the fidelity of NL explanations by incorporating the contrary explanations to the query process. Moreover, FaithLM conducts an iterative process to improve the fidelity of derived explanations. Experiment results on three datasets from multiple domains demonstrate that FaithLM can significantly improve the fidelity of derived explanations, which also provides a better alignment with the ground-truth explanations.
6/27/2024
๐งช
Towards a Unified Framework for Evaluating Explanations
Juan D. Pinto, Luc Paquette
0
0
The challenge of creating interpretable models has been taken up by two main research communities: ML researchers primarily focused on lower-level explainability methods that suit the needs of engineers, and HCI researchers who have more heavily emphasized user-centered approaches often based on participatory design methods. This paper reviews how these communities have evaluated interpretability, identifying overlaps and semantic misalignments. We propose moving towards a unified framework of evaluation criteria and lay the groundwork for such a framework by articulating the relationships between existing criteria. We argue that explanations serve as mediators between models and stakeholders, whether for intrinsically interpretable models or opaque black-box models analyzed via post-hoc techniques. We further argue that useful explanations require both faithfulness and intelligibility. Explanation plausibility is a prerequisite for intelligibility, while stability is a prerequisite for explanation faithfulness. We illustrate these criteria, as well as specific evaluation methods, using examples from an ongoing study of an interpretable neural network for predicting a particular learner behavior.
5/24/2024