Explanation Selection Using Unlabeled Data for Chain-of-Thought Prompting

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.04813v3
• Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:42:15 GMT
• Title: Explanation Selection Using Unlabeled Data for Chain-of-Thought Prompting
• Authors: Xi Ye and Greg Durrett
• Abstract summary: Explanations that have not been "tuned" for a task, such as off-the-shelf explanations written by nonexperts, may lead to mediocre performance. This paper tackles the problem of how to optimize explanation-infused prompts in a blackbox fashion.
• Score: 80.9896041501715
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent work has shown how to prompt large language models with explanations to obtain strong performance on textual reasoning tasks, i.e., the chain-of-thought paradigm. However, subtly different explanations can yield widely varying downstream task accuracy. Explanations that have not been "tuned" for a task, such as off-the-shelf explanations written by nonexperts, may lead to mediocre performance. This paper tackles the problem of how to optimize explanation-infused prompts in a blackbox fashion. We first generate sets of candidate explanations for each example in the prompt using a leave-one-out scheme, then find an effective combination of these explanations with a two-stage framework. We first evaluate explanations for each in-context example in isolation according to two proxy metrics, log likelihood and accuracy on new examples. Then, we search over combinations of explanations to find one that yields high performance against a silver-labeled development set. Across four textual reasoning tasks spanning question answering, mathematical reasoning, and natural language inference, results show that our proxy metrics correlate with ground truth accuracy and our overall method can effectively improve prompts over crowdworker annotations and naive search strategies

Related papers

• XPrompt:Explaining Large Language Model's Generation via Joint Prompt Attribution [26.639271355209104]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performances in complex text generation tasks. The contribution of the input prompt to the generated content still remains obscure to humans. We introduce a counterfactual explanation framework based on joint prompt attribution, XPrompt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T18:16:41Z)
• Parallel Sentence-Level Explanation Generation for Real-World Low-Resource Scenarios [18.5713713816771]
  This paper is the first to explore the problem smoothly from weak-supervised learning to unsupervised learning. We propose a non-autoregressive interpretable model to facilitate parallel explanation generation and simultaneous prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-21T14:52:21Z)
• Complementary Explanations for Effective In-Context Learning [77.83124315634386]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable capabilities in learning from explanations in prompts. This work aims to better understand the mechanisms by which explanations are used for in-context learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-25T04:40:47Z)
• The Unreliability of Explanations in Few-Shot In-Context Learning [50.77996380021221]
  We focus on two NLP tasks that involve reasoning over text, namely question answering and natural language inference. We show that explanations judged as good by humans--those that are logically consistent with the input--usually indicate more accurate predictions. We present a framework for calibrating model predictions based on the reliability of the explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-06T17:57:58Z)
• Prompting Contrastive Explanations for Commonsense Reasoning Tasks [74.7346558082693]
  Large pretrained language models (PLMs) can achieve near-human performance on commonsense reasoning tasks. We show how to use these same models to generate human-interpretable evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-12T17:06:13Z)
• Search Methods for Sufficient, Socially-Aligned Feature Importance Explanations with In-Distribution Counterfactuals [72.00815192668193]
  Feature importance (FI) estimates are a popular form of explanation, and they are commonly created and evaluated by computing the change in model confidence caused by removing certain input features at test time. We study several under-explored dimensions of FI-based explanations, providing conceptual and empirical improvements for this form of explanation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-01T20:36:48Z)
• Contrastive Explanations for Model Interpretability [77.92370750072831]
  We propose a methodology to produce contrastive explanations for classification models. Our method is based on projecting model representation to a latent space. Our findings shed light on the ability of label-contrastive explanations to provide a more accurate and finer-grained interpretability of a model's decision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-02T00:36:45Z)
• Explaining Inference Queries with Bayesian Optimization [16.448164301763168]
  Inference query explanation seeks to explain unexpected aggregate query results on inference data. An explanation may need to be derived from the source, training, or inference data in an ML pipeline. We propose BOExplain, a novel framework for explaining inference queries using Bayesian optimization (BO)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-10T08:08:32Z)
• ExplanationLP: Abductive Reasoning for Explainable Science Question Answering [4.726777092009554]
  This paper frames question answering as an abductive reasoning problem. We construct plausible explanations for each choice and then selecting the candidate with the best explanation as the final answer. Our system, ExplanationLP, elicits explanations by constructing a weighted graph of relevant facts for each candidate answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-25T14:49:24Z)

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.