How Ambiguous are the Rationales for Natural Language Reasoning? A Simple Approach to Handling Rationale Uncertainty

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.14337v2
• Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 21:16:55 GMT
• Title: How Ambiguous are the Rationales for Natural Language Reasoning? A Simple Approach to Handling Rationale Uncertainty
• Authors: Hazel Kim,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: Rationales behind answers not only explain model decisions but boost language models to reason well on complex reasoning tasks. However, obtaining impeccable rationales is often impossible. Besides, it is non-trivial to estimate the degree to which the rationales are faithful enough to encourage model performance. Thus, such reasoning tasks often compel models to output correct answers under undesirable rationales and are sub-optimal compared to what the models are fully capable of. In this work, we propose how to deal with imperfect rationales causing aleatoric uncertainty. We first define the ambiguous rationales with entropy scores of given rationales, using model prior beliefs as informativeness. We then guide models to select one of two different reasoning models according to the ambiguity of rationales. We empirically argue that our proposed method produces robust performance superiority against the adversarial quality of rationales and low-resource settings.

Related papers

• Boosting the Power of Small Multimodal Reasoning Models to Match Larger Models with Self-Consistency Training [49.3242278912771]
  Multimodal reasoning is a challenging task that requires models to reason across multiple modalities to answer questions. Existing approaches have made progress by incorporating language and visual modalities into a two-stage reasoning framework. We propose MC-CoT, a self-consistency training strategy that generates multiple rationales and answers, subsequently selecting the most accurate through a voting process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-23T17:09:48Z)
• 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)
• MetaLogic: Logical Reasoning Explanations with Fine-Grained Structure [129.8481568648651]
  We propose a benchmark to investigate models' logical reasoning capabilities in complex real-life scenarios. Based on the multi-hop chain of reasoning, the explanation form includes three main components. We evaluate the current best models' performance on this new explanation form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-22T16:01:13Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Rationales for Sequential Predictions [117.93025782838123]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-14T01:25:15Z)
• 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)
• Why do you think that? Exploring Faithful Sentence-Level Rationales Without Supervision [60.62434362997016]
  We propose a differentiable training-framework to create models which output faithful rationales on a sentence level. Our model solves the task based on each rationale individually and learns to assign high scores to those which solved the task best.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-07T12:54:28Z)

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.