Interpretability Illusions in the Generalization of Simplified Models

Overview

• Researchers investigated the limitations of using simplified model representations like dimensionality reduction to study deep learning systems.
• They found that these simplified proxies can accurately approximate the original model's behavior on the training set, but fail to capture the model's systematic generalization abilities.
• The study used controlled datasets and Transformer models to test how well simplified representations match the original model's behavior, both on in-distribution and out-of-distribution evaluations.

Plain English Explanation

When researchers want to understand how deep learning models work under the hood, they often use simplified representations of the model, such as dimensionality reduction techniques or clustering approaches. The idea is that these simplified versions can provide a clearer picture of the model's inner workings. However, this paper shows that there's an important caveat to this approach.

The researchers found that while these simplified representations can accurately mimic the original model's performance on the training data, they often fail to capture the model's ability to generalize systematically to new, out-of-distribution situations. In other words, the simplified proxies may give a misleading impression of what the full model is capable of.

To demonstrate this, the researchers trained Transformer models on specialized datasets designed to test systematic generalization, like the Dyck balanced-parenthesis language and a code completion task. They then used dimensionality reduction and clustering to create simplified versions of the models, and compared the behavior of the original and simplified models.

Surprisingly, they found cases where the original model could generalize systematically, but the simplified proxies failed to do so. Conversely, they also found cases where the simplified proxies actually generalized better than the original model. These inconsistencies raise doubts about how well the simplified representations can predict a model's behavior in novel situations, as described in this related work.

Technical Explanation

The researchers trained Transformer language models on two specialized datasets designed to test systematic generalization: the Dyck balanced-parenthesis language task, and a code completion task. These datasets have "systematic generalization splits", meaning there are clear structural differences between the training and evaluation data that the models must learn to generalize across.

After training the models, the researchers used dimensionality reduction (via Singular Value Decomposition) and clustering techniques to create simplified representations of the models' hidden states. They then compared the behavior of the original and simplified models, both on the in-distribution training data and on various out-of-distribution generalization tests.

Surprisingly, the researchers found consistent "generalization gaps" - cases where the simplified proxies were more faithful to the original model's behavior on the training data, but less faithful on the generalization tests. This included situations where the original model could generalize systematically, but the simplified proxies failed to do so, as well as the reverse - cases where the simplified proxies generalized better than the original model.

These findings challenge the assumption that simplified model representations can reliably predict the original model's behavior in novel situations. The researchers argue that mechanistic interpretations derived from tools like SVD may have important limitations when it comes to understanding a model's systematic generalization capabilities, as discussed in this related work.

Critical Analysis

The researchers provide a compelling demonstration of the limitations of using simplified model representations to study deep learning systems. Their key insight is that while these simplified proxies may accurately capture a model's performance on the training data, they can fail to reflect the model's true systematic generalization abilities.

One limitation of the study is that it focuses on a relatively narrow set of tasks and model architectures (Transformers on the Dyck and code completion datasets). It would be valuable to see if the same patterns hold for a wider range of model types and problem domains.

Additionally, the researchers do not provide a clear explanation for why the simplified proxies sometimes generalize better than the original models. This deserves further investigation, as it could shed light on the factors that influence systematic generalization in deep learning.

Overall, this paper raises important questions about the reliability of mechanistic interpretations derived from simplified model representations. It suggests that researchers should exercise caution when using these techniques and be mindful of their potential limitations, especially when it comes to understanding a model's ability to generalize in novel situations.

Conclusion

This study highlights a critical caveat in using simplified model representations to study deep learning systems. While these simplified proxies can accurately approximate a model's behavior on the training data, they may fail to capture the model's true systematic generalization capabilities.

The researchers' findings challenge the assumption that tools like dimensionality reduction and clustering can reliably predict how a model will perform in novel, out-of-distribution scenarios. This has important implications for the field of interpretable AI, as it suggests that mechanistic interpretations derived from these simplified representations may not always be faithful to the original model's behavior.

Overall, this paper serves as a cautionary tale for researchers and practitioners who rely on simplified model representations to understand and interpret deep learning systems. It underscores the need for more rigorous and comprehensive evaluation methods that can truly capture a model's generalization abilities, beyond just its performance on the training data.