Rationale-Augmented Ensembles in Language Models
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.00747v1
- Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2022 06:20:57 GMT
- Title: Rationale-Augmented Ensembles in Language Models
- Authors: Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Denny Zhou
- Abstract summary: 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.
- Score: 53.45015291520658
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Recent research has shown that rationales, or step-by-step chains of thought,
can be used to improve performance in multi-step reasoning tasks. We reconsider
rationale-augmented prompting for few-shot in-context learning, where (input ->
output) prompts are expanded to (input, rationale -> output) prompts. For
rationale-augmented prompting we demonstrate how existing approaches, which
rely on manual prompt engineering, are subject to sub-optimal rationales that
may harm performance. To mitigate this brittleness, we propose a unified
framework of rationale-augmented ensembles, where we identify rationale
sampling in the output space as the key component to robustly improve
performance. This framework is general and can easily be extended to common
natural language processing tasks, even those that do not traditionally
leverage intermediate steps, such as question answering, word sense
disambiguation, and sentiment analysis. We demonstrate that rationale-augmented
ensembles achieve more accurate and interpretable results than existing
prompting approaches--including standard prompting without rationales and
rationale-based chain-of-thought prompting--while simultaneously improving
interpretability of model predictions through the associated rationales.
Related papers
- Proof of Thought : Neurosymbolic Program Synthesis allows Robust and Interpretable Reasoning [1.3003982724617653]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, yet they struggle with inconsistent reasoning.
This research introduces Proof of Thought, a framework that enhances the reliability and transparency of LLM outputs.
Key contributions include a robust type system with sort management for enhanced logical integrity, explicit representation of rules for clear distinction between factual and inferential knowledge.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-09-25T18:35:45Z) - Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales.
We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z) - LaRS: Latent Reasoning Skills for Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [61.7853049843921]
Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is a popular in-context learning approach for large language models (LLMs)
This paper introduces a new approach named Latent Reasoning Skills (LaRS) that employs unsupervised learning to create a latent space representation of rationales.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-07T20:36:10Z) - Towards Trustworthy Explanation: On Causal Rationalization [9.48539398357156]
We propose a new model of rationalization based on two causal desiderata, non-spuriousness and efficiency.
The superior performance of the proposed causal rationalization is demonstrated on real-world review and medical datasets.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-25T03:34:06Z) - HOP, UNION, GENERATE: Explainable Multi-hop Reasoning without Rationale
Supervision [118.0818807474809]
This work proposes a principled, probabilistic approach for training explainable multi-hop QA systems without rationale supervision.
Our approach performs multi-hop reasoning by explicitly modeling rationales as sets, enabling the model to capture interactions between documents and sentences within a document.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-23T16:53:49Z) - Interlock-Free Multi-Aspect Rationalization for Text Classification [33.33452117387646]
We show that we address the interlocking problem in the multi-aspect setting.
We propose a multi-stage training method incorporating an additional self-supervised contrastive loss.
Empirical results on the beer review dataset show that our method improves significantly the rationalization performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-05-13T16:38:38Z) - Can Rationalization Improve Robustness? [39.741059642044874]
We investigate whether neural NLP models can provide robustness to adversarial attacks in addition to their interpretable nature.
We generate various types of 'AddText' attacks for both token and sentence-level rationalization tasks.
Our experiments reveal that the rationale models show the promise to improve robustness, while they struggle in certain scenarios.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-04-25T17:02:42Z) - Probing as Quantifying the Inductive Bias of Pre-trained Representations [99.93552997506438]
We present a novel framework for probing where the goal is to evaluate the inductive bias of representations for a particular task.
We apply our framework to a series of token-, arc-, and sentence-level tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-10-15T22:01:16Z) - SPECTRA: Sparse Structured Text Rationalization [0.0]
We present a unified framework for deterministic extraction of structured explanations via constrained inference on a factor graph.
Our approach greatly eases training and rationale regularization, generally outperforming previous work on plausibility extracted explanations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-09-09T20:39:56Z) - Measuring Association Between Labels and Free-Text Rationales [60.58672852655487]
In interpretable NLP, we require faithful rationales that reflect the model's decision-making process for an explained instance.
We demonstrate that pipelines, existing models for faithful extractive rationalization on information-extraction style tasks, do not extend as reliably to "reasoning" tasks requiring free-text rationales.
We turn to models that jointly predict and rationalize, a class of widely used high-performance models for free-text rationalization whose faithfulness is not yet established.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-24T03:40:56Z)
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.