Local Explanations and Self-Explanations for Assessing Faithfulness in black-box LLMs

Overview

• This paper explores methods for assessing the faithfulness of black-box large language models (LLMs) using local explanations and self-explanations.
• The authors propose two key approaches: local explanations, which provide insights into individual model predictions, and self-explanations, where the model explains its own reasoning.
• The goal is to determine how well these techniques can capture the internal decision-making process of LLMs, which are often opaque "black boxes."

Plain English Explanation

The paper looks at ways to better understand how large language models (LLMs) make their decisions. LLMs are powerful AI systems that can generate human-like text, but they are often treated like "black boxes" - it's not always clear how they arrive at their outputs.

The researchers tested two methods to shed light on this "black box":

1. Local Explanations: These provide insights into individual predictions made by the LLM. For example, the model could explain why it chose a particular word in a sentence.

2. Self-Explanations: Here, the LLM itself tries to explain its own reasoning process. The model essentially gives a step-by-step account of how it reached a certain conclusion.

The idea is that these techniques can help assess how "faithful" the LLM is - in other words, how well the explanations match the model's actual internal decision-making. This is important because it allows us to better trust and understand the behavior of these powerful but opaque AI systems.

Technical Explanation

The paper proposes two complementary approaches to evaluate the faithfulness of black-box LLMs:

1. Local Explanations: The authors use perturbation-based methods to generate local explanations for individual model predictions. These explanations capture how the model's output changes in response to small changes in the input. By analyzing these local changes, the researchers can gain insight into the model's internal decision-making process.

2. Self-Explanations: The authors also explore having the LLM itself provide step-by-step "self-explanations" for its predictions. This allows the model to directly articulate its reasoning, potentially revealing more about its inner workings.

The paper evaluates these techniques across several LLM tasks, including question answering, commonsense reasoning, and natural language inference. The authors analyze the faithfulness of the local and self-explanations by comparing them to ground truth information about the models' true decision-making.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a valuable contribution by exploring techniques to better understand the inner workings of black-box LLMs. The authors acknowledge some key limitations:

• The local explanation and self-explanation approaches may not fully capture the complex and distributed decision-making processes within large neural networks.
• There are open questions around how to best elicit and interpret the self-explanations generated by LLMs.
• The proposed methods may be computationally expensive or difficult to scale to very large models.

Additionally, one could argue that the paper focuses primarily on evaluating faithfulness, but does not address how these techniques could be used to actually improve the transparency and interpretability of LLMs. Further research is needed to understand how explanations can be leveraged to enhance model development and deployment.

Conclusion

This paper makes an important step towards assessing the faithfulness of black-box LLMs using local explanations and self-explanations. By shedding light on the internal decision-making of these powerful AI systems, the proposed techniques could enhance trust, accountability, and responsible development of large language models. However, the authors acknowledge limitations that suggest further research is needed to fully unlock the potential of explanation-based approaches for understanding and improving LLMs.