Rationales for Sequential Predictions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.06387v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 01:25:15 GMT
• Title: Rationales for Sequential Predictions
• Authors: Keyon Vafa, Yuntian Deng, David M. Blei, Alexander M. Rush
• Abstract summary: Sequence models are a critical component of modern NLP systems, but their predictions are difficult to explain. We consider model explanations though rationales, subsets of context that can explain individual model predictions. We propose an efficient greedy algorithm to approximate this objective.
• Score: 117.93025782838123
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Sequence models are a critical component of modern NLP systems, but their predictions are difficult to explain. We consider model explanations though rationales, subsets of context that can explain individual model predictions. We find sequential rationales by solving a combinatorial optimization: the best rationale is the smallest subset of input tokens that would predict the same output as the full sequence. Enumerating all subsets is intractable, so we propose an efficient greedy algorithm to approximate this objective. The algorithm, which is called greedy rationalization, applies to any model. For this approach to be effective, the model should form compatible conditional distributions when making predictions on incomplete subsets of the context. This condition can be enforced with a short fine-tuning step. We study greedy rationalization on language modeling and machine translation. Compared to existing baselines, greedy rationalization is best at optimizing the combinatorial objective and provides the most faithful rationales. On a new dataset of annotated sequential rationales, greedy rationales are most similar to human rationales.

Related papers

• How Ambiguous are the Rationales for Natural Language Reasoning? A Simple Approach to Handling Rationale Uncertainty [0.0]
  Rationales behind answers not only explain model decisions but boost language models to reason well on complex reasoning tasks. It is non-trivial to estimate the degree to which the rationales are faithful enough to encourage model performance. We propose how to deal with imperfect rationales causing aleatoric uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T07:12:34Z)
• Plausible Extractive Rationalization through Semi-Supervised Entailment Signal [29.67884478799914]
  We take a semi-supervised approach to optimize for the plausibility of extracted rationales. We adopt a pre-trained natural language inference (NLI) model and further fine-tune it on a small set of supervised rationales. We show that, by enforcing the alignment agreement between the explanation and answer in a question-answering task, the performance can be improved without access to ground truth labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T14:12:32Z)
• Rationale-Augmented Ensembles in Language Models [53.45015291520658]
  We reconsider rationale-augmented prompting for few-shot in-context learning. We identify rationale sampling in the output space as the key component to robustly improve performance. We demonstrate that rationale-augmented ensembles achieve more accurate and interpretable results than existing prompting approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-02T06:20:57Z)
• STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With Reasoning [39.45372621632046]
  "Self-Taught Reason" (STaR) relies on a simple loop: generate rationales to answer many questions, prompted with a few rationale examples. We show that STaR significantly improves performance on multiple datasets compared to a model fine-tuned to directly predict final answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-28T03:12:15Z)
• Discovering Invariant Rationales for Graph Neural Networks [104.61908788639052]
  Intrinsic interpretability of graph neural networks (GNNs) is to find a small subset of the input graph's features. We propose a new strategy of discovering invariant rationale (DIR) to construct intrinsically interpretable GNNs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-30T16:43:40Z)
• Understanding Interlocking Dynamics of Cooperative Rationalization [90.6863969334526]
  Selective rationalization explains the prediction of complex neural networks by finding a small subset of the input that is sufficient to predict the neural model output. We reveal a major problem with such cooperative rationalization paradigm -- model interlocking. We propose a new rationalization framework, called A2R, which introduces a third component into the architecture, a predictor driven by soft attention as opposed to selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-26T17:39:18Z)
• The Irrationality of Neural Rationale Models [6.159428088113691]
  We argue to the contrary, with both philosophical perspectives and empirical evidence suggesting that rationale models are, perhaps, less rational and interpretable than expected. We call for more rigorous and comprehensive evaluations of these models to ensure desired properties of interpretability are indeed achieved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-14T17:22:10Z)
• Complex Event Forecasting with Prediction Suffix Trees: Extended Technical Report [70.7321040534471]
  Complex Event Recognition (CER) systems have become popular in the past two decades due to their ability to "instantly" detect patterns on real-time streams of events. There is a lack of methods for forecasting when a pattern might occur before such an occurrence is actually detected by a CER engine. We present a formal framework that attempts to address the issue of Complex Event Forecasting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-01T09:52:31Z)
• Invariant Rationalization [84.1861516092232]
  A typical rationalization criterion, i.e. maximum mutual information (MMI), finds the rationale that maximizes the prediction performance based only on the rationale. We introduce a game-theoretic invariant rationalization criterion where the rationales are constrained to enable the same predictor to be optimal across different environments. We show both theoretically and empirically that the proposed rationales can rule out spurious correlations, generalize better to different test scenarios, and align better with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-22T00:50:27Z)

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.