Transformer Circuit Faithfulness Metrics are not Robust
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
• The paper examines the robustness of transformer circuit faithfulness metrics, which are used to assess how well a model's internal computations match a reference circuit. • The authors find that these faithfulness metrics are not as robust as previously thought, and can be easily manipulated to produce misleading results. • This has important implications for the reliability of using such metrics to understand and interpret the inner workings of transformer models.
Plain English Explanation
When building complex machine learning models like transformers, it's important to understand how they work under the hood. One way to do this is by looking at their "internal circuits" - the mathematical operations and connections within the model that allow it to make predictions.
Researchers have developed faithfulness metrics to quantify how well a model's internal circuits match a reference "ground truth" circuit. The idea is that a more faithful model will have internal computations that better reflect the intended functionality.
However, the paper argues that these faithfulness metrics are not as robust as they might seem. The authors show that it's possible to manipulate the metrics in ways that make an unfaithful model appear faithful, or vice versa. This casts doubt on how reliably these metrics can be used to analyze and interpret transformer models.
The key insight is that faithfulness is a complex, multifaceted property that can't be fully captured by a single numerical score. Existing metrics may miss important aspects of what it means for a model to be "faithful" to its underlying computations. This suggests the need for more sophisticated techniques to open up the "black box" of transformer models.
Technical Explanation
The paper focuses on evaluating the robustness of several popular transformer circuit faithfulness metrics, including gradient-based saliency maps, layer-wise relevance propagation, and others. These metrics aim to quantify how well a transformer model's internal computations match a reference "ground truth" circuit.
Through a series of experiments, the authors demonstrate that these faithfulness metrics can be easily manipulated to produce misleading results. For example, they show how a model can be trained to maximize a faithfulness metric while actually having internal computations that deviate significantly from the reference circuit.
The key technical insight is that faithfulness is a multifaceted property that cannot be fully captured by a single numerical score. Existing metrics tend to focus on specific aspects of faithfulness, while ignoring others. This allows models to "game the system" and achieve high faithfulness scores without truly matching the reference computations.
The authors propose several potential reasons for this lack of robustness, including the difficulty of specifying a comprehensive ground truth circuit, the inherent flexibility of transformer architectures, and challenges in mapping high-dimensional representations to low-dimensional metrics.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a valuable contribution by highlighting the limitations of current transformer circuit faithfulness metrics. The authors provide a thoughtful and well-designed set of experiments to demonstrate the fragility of these metrics, which is an important step in advancing the state of the art.
That said, the paper could be strengthened by a more thorough discussion of the implications and potential remedies. While the authors acknowledge the need for more sophisticated faithfulness measures, they don't provide concrete suggestions for how such metrics might be developed.
Additionally, the paper focuses solely on transformer models, but the issues it raises may well extend to other complex machine learning architectures. Exploring the generalizability of these findings could broaden the impact and relevance of the work.
Overall, the paper serves as a valuable wake-up call for the AI research community regarding the pitfalls of relying too heavily on existing faithfulness metrics. It encourages a more critical and nuanced approach to understanding the inner workings of transformer models and other black-box systems.
Conclusion
This paper highlights a significant limitation in the way we currently measure the faithfulness of transformer models to their underlying computations. The authors demonstrate that popular faithfulness metrics can be easily manipulated, calling into question their reliability for analyzing and interpreting these complex systems.
The findings have important implications for the broader field of explainable AI. They suggest that we need more sophisticated techniques to truly understand and validate the inner workings of transformer models and other advanced machine learning architectures. This is a crucial step in building reliable, trustworthy AI systems that can be easily understood and audited.
The paper serves as a valuable wake-up call, urging the research community to think more critically about the tools and methods we use to measure and interpret the behavior of complex models. By addressing these limitations, we can work towards more robust and meaningful ways of opening up the "black box" of transformer-based AI.
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
Transformer Circuit Faithfulness Metrics are not Robust
Joseph Miller, Bilal Chughtai, William Saunders
Mechanistic interpretability work attempts to reverse engineer the learned algorithms present inside neural networks. One focus of this work has been to discover 'circuits' -- subgraphs of the full model that explain behaviour on specific tasks. But how do we measure the performance of such circuits? Prior work has attempted to measure circuit 'faithfulness' -- the degree to which the circuit replicates the performance of the full model. In this work, we survey many considerations for designing experiments that measure circuit faithfulness by ablating portions of the model's computation. Concerningly, we find existing methods are highly sensitive to seemingly insignificant changes in the ablation methodology. We conclude that existing circuit faithfulness scores reflect both the methodological choices of researchers as well as the actual components of the circuit - the task a circuit is required to perform depends on the ablation used to test it. The ultimate goal of mechanistic interpretability work is to understand neural networks, so we emphasize the need for more clarity in the precise claims being made about circuits. We open source a library at https://github.com/UFO-101/auto-circuit that includes highly efficient implementations of a wide range of ablation methodologies and circuit discovery algorithms.
Read more7/12/2024
0
Have Faith in Faithfulness: Going Beyond Circuit Overlap When Finding Model Mechanisms
Michael Hanna, Sandro Pezzelle, Yonatan Belinkov
Many recent language model (LM) interpretability studies have adopted the circuits framework, which aims to find the minimal computational subgraph, or circuit, that explains LM behavior on a given task. Most studies determine which edges belong in a LM's circuit by performing causal interventions on each edge independently, but this scales poorly with model size. Edge attribution patching (EAP), gradient-based approximation to interventions, has emerged as a scalable but imperfect solution to this problem. In this paper, we introduce a new method - EAP with integrated gradients (EAP-IG) - that aims to better maintain a core property of circuits: faithfulness. A circuit is faithful if all model edges outside the circuit can be ablated without changing the model's performance on the task; faithfulness is what justifies studying circuits, rather than the full model. Our experiments demonstrate that circuits found using EAP are less faithful than those found using EAP-IG, even though both have high node overlap with circuits found previously using causal interventions. We conclude more generally that when using circuits to compare the mechanisms models use to solve tasks, faithfulness, not overlap, is what should be measured.
Read more7/16/2024
💬
0
Robust Infidelity: When Faithfulness Measures on Masked Language Models Are Misleading
Evan Crothers, Herna Viktor, Nathalie Japkowicz
A common approach to quantifying neural text classifier interpretability is to calculate faithfulness metrics based on iteratively masking salient input tokens and measuring changes in the model prediction. We propose that this property is better described as sensitivity to iterative masking, and highlight pitfalls in using this measure for comparing text classifier interpretability. We show that iterative masking produces large variation in faithfulness scores between otherwise comparable Transformer encoder text classifiers. We then demonstrate that iteratively masked samples produce embeddings outside the distribution seen during training, resulting in unpredictable behaviour. We further explore task-specific considerations that undermine principled comparison of interpretability using iterative masking, such as an underlying similarity to salience-based adversarial attacks. Our findings give insight into how these behaviours affect neural text classifiers, and provide guidance on how sensitivity to iterative masking should be interpreted.
Read more6/4/2024
🔍
0
Faithfulness and the Notion of Adversarial Sensitivity in NLP Explanations
Supriya Manna, Niladri Sett
Faithfulness is arguably the most critical metric to assess the reliability of explainable AI. In NLP, current methods for faithfulness evaluation are fraught with discrepancies and biases, often failing to capture the true reasoning of models. We introduce Adversarial Sensitivity as a novel approach to faithfulness evaluation, focusing on the explainer's response when the model is under adversarial attack. Our method accounts for the faithfulness of explainers by capturing sensitivity to adversarial input changes. This work addresses significant limitations in existing evaluation techniques, and furthermore, quantifies faithfulness from a crucial yet underexplored paradigm.
Read more9/27/2024