Unsupervised Selective Rationalization with Noise Injection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17534v1
• Date: Sat, 27 May 2023 17:34:36 GMT
• Title: Unsupervised Selective Rationalization with Noise Injection
• Authors: Adam Storek, Melanie Subbiah, Kathleen McKeown
• Abstract summary: unsupervised selective rationalization produces rationales alongside predictions by chaining two jointly-trained components, a rationale generator and a predictor. We introduce a novel training technique that effectively limits generation of implausible rationales by injecting noise between the generator and the predictor. We achieve sizeable improvements in rationale plausibility and task accuracy over the state-of-the-art across a variety of tasks, including our new benchmark.
• Score: 7.17737088382948
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: A major issue with using deep learning models in sensitive applications is that they provide no explanation for their output. To address this problem, unsupervised selective rationalization produces rationales alongside predictions by chaining two jointly-trained components, a rationale generator and a predictor. Although this architecture guarantees that the prediction relies solely on the rationale, it does not ensure that the rationale contains a plausible explanation for the prediction. We introduce a novel training technique that effectively limits generation of implausible rationales by injecting noise between the generator and the predictor. Furthermore, we propose a new benchmark for evaluating unsupervised selective rationalization models using movie reviews from existing datasets. We achieve sizeable improvements in rationale plausibility and task accuracy over the state-of-the-art across a variety of tasks, including our new benchmark, while maintaining or improving model faithfulness.

Related papers

• Adversarial Attack for Explanation Robustness of Rationalization Models [17.839644167949906]
  Rationalization models select a subset of input text as rationale-crucial for humans to understand and trust predictions. This paper aims to undermine the explainability of rationalization models without altering their predictions, thereby eliciting distrust in these models from human users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T12:43:58Z)
• Enhancing the Rationale-Input Alignment for Self-explaining Rationalization [22.74436500022893]
  We introduce a novel approach called DAR (textbfDiscriminatively textbfAligned textbfRationalization) to align the selected rationale and the original input. Experiments on two widely used real-world benchmarks show that the proposed method significantly improves the explanation quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T07:37:15Z)
• Rationalizing Predictions by Adversarial Information Calibration [65.19407304154177]
  We train two models jointly: one is a typical neural model that solves the task at hand in an accurate but black-box manner, and the other is a selector-predictor model that additionally produces a rationale for its prediction. We use an adversarial technique to calibrate the information extracted by the two models such that the difference between them is an indicator of the missed or over-selected features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-15T03:13:09Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Neuro-Symbolic Entropy Regularization [78.16196949641079]
  In structured prediction, the goal is to jointly predict many output variables that together encode a structured object. One approach -- entropy regularization -- posits that decision boundaries should lie in low-probability regions. We propose a loss, neuro-symbolic entropy regularization, that encourages the model to confidently predict a valid object.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-25T06:23:10Z)
• 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)
• Dense Uncertainty Estimation [62.23555922631451]
  In this paper, we investigate neural networks and uncertainty estimation techniques to achieve both accurate deterministic prediction and reliable uncertainty estimation. We work on two types of uncertainty estimations solutions, namely ensemble based methods and generative model based methods, and explain their pros and cons while using them in fully/semi/weakly-supervised framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-13T01:23:48Z)
• Learning to Rationalize for Nonmonotonic Reasoning with Distant Supervision [44.32874972577682]
  We investigate the extent to which neural models can reason about natural language rationales that explain model predictions. We use pre-trained language models, neural knowledge models, and distant supervision from related tasks. Our model shows promises at generating post-hoc rationales explaining why an inference is more or less likely given the additional information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-14T23:50:20Z)
• 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.