A Question on the Explainability of Large Language Models and the Word-Level Univariate First-Order Plausibility Assumption

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.10275v1
• Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:15:23 GMT
• Title: A Question on the Explainability of Large Language Models and the Word-Level Univariate First-Order Plausibility Assumption
• Authors: Jeremie Bogaert, Francois-Xavier Standaert,
• Abstract summary: We give statistical definitions for the explanations' signal, noise and signal-to-noise ratio. We then discuss the possibility to improve these results with alternative definitions of signal and noise.
• Score: 4.824647351224233
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: The explanations of large language models have recently been shown to be sensitive to the randomness used for their training, creating a need to characterize this sensitivity. In this paper, we propose a characterization that questions the possibility to provide simple and informative explanations for such models. To this end, we give statistical definitions for the explanations' signal, noise and signal-to-noise ratio. We highlight that, in a typical case study where word-level univariate explanations are analyzed with first-order statistical tools, the explanations of simple feature-based models carry more signal and less noise than those of transformer ones. We then discuss the possibility to improve these results with alternative definitions of signal and noise that would capture more complex explanations and analysis methods, while also questioning the tradeoff with their plausibility for readers.

Related papers

• Explanation sensitivity to the randomness of large language models: the case of journalistic text classification [6.240875403446504]
  We study the effect of random elements in the training of large language models on the explainability of their predictions. Using a fine-tuned CamemBERT model and an explanation method based on relevance propagation, we find that training with different random seeds produces models with similar accuracy but variable explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T14:39:45Z)
• Selective Explanations [14.312717332216073]
  A machine learning model is trained to predict feature attribution scores with only one inference. Despite their efficiency, amortized explainers can produce inaccurate predictions and misleading explanations. We propose selective explanations, a novel feature attribution method that detects when amortized explainers generate low-quality explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T23:08:31Z)
• On Generating Monolithic and Model Reconciling Explanations in Probabilistic Scenarios [46.752418052725126]
  We propose a novel framework for generating probabilistic monolithic explanations and model reconciling explanations. For monolithic explanations, our approach integrates uncertainty by utilizing probabilistic logic to increase the probability of the explanandum. For model reconciling explanations, we propose a framework that extends the logic-based variant of the model reconciliation problem to account for probabilistic human models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T16:07:31Z)
• Explaining Text Similarity in Transformer Models [52.571158418102584]
  Recent advances in explainable AI have made it possible to mitigate limitations by leveraging improved explanations for Transformers. We use BiLRP, an extension developed for computing second-order explanations in bilinear similarity models, to investigate which feature interactions drive similarity in NLP models. Our findings contribute to a deeper understanding of different semantic similarity tasks and models, highlighting how novel explainable AI methods enable in-depth analyses and corpus-level insights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T17:11:31Z)
• MaNtLE: Model-agnostic Natural Language Explainer [9.43206883360088]
  We introduce MaNtLE, a model-agnostic natural language explainer that analyzes multiple classifier predictions. MaNtLE uses multi-task training on thousands of synthetic classification tasks to generate faithful explanations. Simulated user studies indicate that, on average, MaNtLE-generated explanations are at least 11% more faithful compared to LIME and Anchors explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T12:58:06Z)
• Learning with Explanation Constraints [91.23736536228485]
  We provide a learning theoretic framework to analyze how explanations can improve the learning of our models. We demonstrate the benefits of our approach over a large array of synthetic and real-world experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-25T15:06:47Z)
• Explainability in Process Outcome Prediction: Guidelines to Obtain Interpretable and Faithful Models [77.34726150561087]
  We define explainability through the interpretability of the explanations and the faithfulness of the explainability model in the field of process outcome prediction. This paper contributes a set of guidelines named X-MOP which allows selecting the appropriate model based on the event log specifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-30T05:59:50Z)
• Interpreting Language Models with Contrastive Explanations [99.7035899290924]
  Language models must consider various features to predict a token, such as its part of speech, number, tense, or semantics. Existing explanation methods conflate evidence for all these features into a single explanation, which is less interpretable for human understanding. We show that contrastive explanations are quantifiably better than non-contrastive explanations in verifying major grammatical phenomena.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-21T18:32:24Z)
• Diagnostics-Guided Explanation Generation [32.97930902104502]
  Explanations shed light on a machine learning model's rationales and can aid in identifying deficiencies in its reasoning process. We show how to optimise for several diagnostic properties when training a model to generate sentence-level explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-08T16:27:52Z)
• The Struggles of Feature-Based Explanations: Shapley Values vs. Minimal Sufficient Subsets [61.66584140190247]
  We show that feature-based explanations pose problems even for explaining trivial models. We show that two popular classes of explainers, Shapley explainers and minimal sufficient subsets explainers, target fundamentally different types of ground-truth explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-23T09:45:23Z)
• Evaluations and Methods for Explanation through Robustness Analysis [117.7235152610957]
  We establish a novel set of evaluation criteria for such feature based explanations by analysis. We obtain new explanations that are loosely necessary and sufficient for a prediction. We extend the explanation to extract the set of features that would move the current prediction to a target class.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-31T05:52:05Z)

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.