ZARA: Improving Few-Shot Self-Rationalization for Small Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07355v2
• Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 15:04:20 GMT
• Title: ZARA: Improving Few-Shot Self-Rationalization for Small Language Models
• Authors: Wei-Lin Chen, An-Zi Yen, Cheng-Kuang Wu, Hen-Hsen Huang, Hsin-Hsi Chen
• Abstract summary: We present a novel approach, Zero-shot Augmentation of Rationale-Answer pairs (ZARA), to automatically construct pseudo-parallel data for self-training. ZARA achieves SOTA performance on the FEB benchmark, for both the task accuracy and the explanation metric.
• Score: 29.755148112827502
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Language models (LMs) that jointly generate end-task answers as well as free-text rationales are known as self-rationalization models. Recent works demonstrate great performance gain for self-rationalization by few-shot prompting LMs with rationale-augmented exemplars. However, the ability to benefit from explanations only emerges with large-scale LMs, which have poor accessibility. In this work, we explore the less-studied setting of leveraging explanations for small LMs to improve few-shot self-rationalization. We first revisit the relationship between rationales and answers. Inspired by the implicit mental process of how human beings assess explanations, we present a novel approach, Zero-shot Augmentation of Rationale-Answer pairs (ZARA), to automatically construct pseudo-parallel data for self-training by reducing the problem of plausibility judgement to natural language inference. Experimental results show ZARA achieves SOTA performance on the FEB benchmark, for both the task accuracy and the explanation metric. In addition, we conduct human and quantitative evaluation validating ZARA's ability to automatically identify plausible and accurate rationale-answer pairs.

Related papers

• 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)
• Self-Debiasing Large Language Models: Zero-Shot Recognition and Reduction of Stereotypes [73.12947922129261]
  We leverage the zero-shot capabilities of large language models to reduce stereotyping. We show that self-debiasing can significantly reduce the degree of stereotyping across nine different social groups. We hope this work opens inquiry into other zero-shot techniques for bias mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T01:40:11Z)
• Characterizing Large Language Models as Rationalizers of Knowledge-intensive Tasks [6.51301154858045]
  Large language models (LLMs) are proficient at generating fluent text with minimal task-specific supervision. We consider the task of generating knowledge-guided rationalization in natural language by using expert-written examples in a few-shot manner. Surprisingly, crowd-workers preferred knowledge-grounded rationales over crowdsourced rationalizations, citing their factuality, sufficiency, and comprehensive refutations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-09T01:04:44Z)
• Tailoring Self-Rationalizers with Multi-Reward Distillation [88.95781098418993]
  Large language models (LMs) are capable of generating free-text rationales to aid question answering. In this work, we enable small-scale LMs to generate rationales that improve downstream task performance. Our method, MaRio, is a multi-reward conditioned self-rationalization algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:20:11Z)
• S3C: Semi-Supervised VQA Natural Language Explanation via Self-Critical Learning [46.787034512390434]
  VQA Natural Language Explanation (VQA-NLE) task aims to explain the decision-making process of VQA models in natural language. We propose a new Semi-Supervised VQA-NLE via Self-Critical Learning (S3C) S3C evaluates the candidate explanations by answering rewards to improve the logical consistency between answers and rationales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-05T11:47:51Z)
• Post Hoc Explanations of Language Models Can Improve Language Models [43.2109029463221]
  We present a novel framework, Amplifying Model Performance by Leveraging In-Context Learning with Post Hoc Explanations (AMPLIFY) We leverage post hoc explanation methods which output attribution scores (explanations) capturing the influence of each of the input features on model predictions. Our framework, AMPLIFY, leads to prediction accuracy improvements of about 10-25% over a wide range of tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T04:46:04Z)
• SCOTT: Self-Consistent Chain-of-Thought Distillation [68.40232422158569]
  Large language models (LMs) generate free-text rationales for their predictions via chain-of-thought prompting. We propose a faithful knowledge distillation method to learn a small, self-consistent CoT model from a teacher model that is orders of magnitude larger. To ensure faithful distillation, we use the teacher-generated rationales to learn a student LM with a counterfactual reasoning objective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T03:47:00Z)
• Does Self-Rationalization Improve Robustness to Spurious Correlations? [19.553357015260687]
  We ask whether training models to self-rationalize can aid in their learning to solve tasks for the right reasons. We evaluate robustness to spurious correlations in fine-tuned encoder-decoder and decoder-only models of six different sizes. We find that while self-rationalization can improve robustness to spurious correlations in low-resource settings, it tends to hurt robustness in higher-resource settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-24T19:54:57Z)
• Few-Shot Self-Rationalization with Natural Language Prompts [29.23404535276466]
  Self-rationalization models that predict task labels generate free-text elaborations for their predictions. These models are, however, currently trained with a large amount of human-written free-text explanations for each task. We propose to study a more realistic setting of self-rationalization using few training examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-16T08:21:40Z)
• 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)
• oLMpics -- On what Language Model Pre-training Captures [84.60594612120173]
  We propose eight reasoning tasks, which require operations such as comparison, conjunction, and composition. A fundamental challenge is to understand whether the performance of a LM on a task should be attributed to the pre-trained representations or to the process of fine-tuning on the task data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-12-31T12:11:35Z)

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.