Empowering Language Understanding with Counterfactual Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.03046v1
• Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2021 06:36:52 GMT
• Title: Empowering Language Understanding with Counterfactual Reasoning
• Authors: Fuli Feng, Jizhi Zhang, Xiangnan He, Hanwang Zhang, Tat-Seng Chua
• Abstract summary: We propose a Counterfactual Reasoning Model, which mimics the counterfactual thinking by learning from few counterfactual samples. In particular, we devise a generation module to generate representative counterfactual samples for each factual sample, and a retrospective module to retrospect the model prediction by comparing the counterfactual and factual samples.
• Score: 141.48592718583245
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Present language understanding methods have demonstrated extraordinary ability of recognizing patterns in texts via machine learning. However, existing methods indiscriminately use the recognized patterns in the testing phase that is inherently different from us humans who have counterfactual thinking, e.g., to scrutinize for the hard testing samples. Inspired by this, we propose a Counterfactual Reasoning Model, which mimics the counterfactual thinking by learning from few counterfactual samples. In particular, we devise a generation module to generate representative counterfactual samples for each factual sample, and a retrospective module to retrospect the model prediction by comparing the counterfactual and factual samples. Extensive experiments on sentiment analysis (SA) and natural language inference (NLI) validate the effectiveness of our method.

Related papers

• Counterfactuals As a Means for Evaluating Faithfulness of Attribution Methods in Autoregressive Language Models [6.394084132117747]
  We propose a technique that leverages counterfactual generation to evaluate the faithfulness of attribution methods for autoregressive language models. Our technique generates fluent, in-distribution counterfactuals, making the evaluation protocol more reliable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-21T00:17:59Z)
• fAux: Testing Individual Fairness via Gradient Alignment [2.5329739965085785]
  We describe a new approach for testing individual fairness that does not have either requirement. We show that the proposed method effectively identifies discrimination on both synthetic and real-world datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-10T21:27:20Z)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• Interpreting Language Models with Contrastive Explanations [99.7035899290924]
  Language models must consider various features to predict a token, such as its part of speech, number, tense, or semantics. Existing explanation methods conflate evidence for all these features into a single explanation, which is less interpretable for human understanding. We show that contrastive explanations are quantifiably better than non-contrastive explanations in verifying major grammatical phenomena.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-21T18:32:24Z)
• Explain, Edit, and Understand: Rethinking User Study Design for Evaluating Model Explanations [97.91630330328815]
  We conduct a crowdsourcing study, where participants interact with deception detection models that have been trained to distinguish between genuine and fake hotel reviews. We observe that for a linear bag-of-words model, participants with access to the feature coefficients during training are able to cause a larger reduction in model confidence in the testing phase when compared to the no-explanation control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-17T18:29:56Z)
• On the Lack of Robust Interpretability of Neural Text Classifiers [14.685352584216757]
  We assess the robustness of interpretations of neural text classifiers based on pretrained Transformer encoders. Both tests show surprising deviations from expected behavior, raising questions about the extent of insights that practitioners may draw from interpretations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-08T18:31:02Z)
• On Sampling-Based Training Criteria for Neural Language Modeling [97.35284042981675]
  We consider Monte Carlo sampling, importance sampling, a novel method we call compensated partial summation, and noise contrastive estimation. We show that all these sampling methods can perform equally well, as long as we correct for the intended class posterior probabilities. Experimental results in language modeling and automatic speech recognition on Switchboard and LibriSpeech support our claim.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-21T12:55:52Z)
• Unnatural Language Inference [48.45003475966808]
  We find that state-of-the-art NLI models, such as RoBERTa and BART, are invariant to, and sometimes even perform better on, examples with randomly reordered words. Our findings call into question the idea that our natural language understanding models, and the tasks used for measuring their progress, genuinely require a human-like understanding of syntax.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-30T20:40:48Z)
• Pair the Dots: Jointly Examining Training History and Test Stimuli for Model Interpretability [44.60486560836836]
  Any prediction from a model is made by a combination of learning history and test stimuli. Existing methods to interpret a model's predictions are only able to capture a single aspect of either test stimuli or learning history. We propose an efficient and differentiable approach to make it feasible to interpret a model's prediction by jointly examining training history and test stimuli.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-14T10:45:01Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.