Enhancing the Rationale-Input Alignment for Self-explaining Rationalization
Rationalization empowers deep learning models with self-explaining capabilities through a cooperative game, where a generator selects a semantically consistent subset of the input as a rationale, and a subsequent predictor makes predictions based on the selected rationale. In this paper, we discover that rationalization is prone to a problem named \emph{rationale shift}, which arises from the algorithmic bias of the cooperative game. Rationale shift refers to a situation where the semantics of the selected rationale may deviate from the original input, but the predictor still produces accurate predictions based on the deviation, resulting in a compromised generator with misleading feedback. To address this issue, we first demonstrate the importance of the alignment between the rationale and the full input through both empirical observations and theoretical analysis. Subsequently, we introduce a novel approach called DAR (\textbf{D}iscriminatively \textbf{A}ligned \textbf{R}ationalization), which utilizes an auxiliary module pretrained on the full input to discriminatively align the selected rationale and the original input. We theoretically illustrate how DAR accomplishes the desired alignment, thereby overcoming the rationale shift problem. The experiments on two widely used real-world benchmarks show that the proposed method significantly improves the explanation quality (measured by the overlap between the model-selected explanation and the human-annotated rationale) as compared to state-of-the-art techniques. Additionally, results on two synthetic settings further validate the effectiveness of DAR in addressing the rationale shift problem.
Code (1)
Methods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Self-Explaining Hate Speech Detection with Moral Rationales
Hate speech detection models rely on surface-level lexical features, increasing vulnerability to spurious correlations and limiting robustness, cultural contextualization, and interpretability. We propose Supervised Mora…
Hate Speech DetectionAre Shortest Rationales the Best Explanations for Human Understanding?
Existing self-explaining models typically favor extracting the shortest possible rationales - snippets of an input text "responsible for" corresponding output - to explain the model prediction, with the assumption that s…
Are Shortest Rationales the Best Explanations For Human Understanding?
Existing self-explaining models typically favor extracting the shortest rationales possible (“shortest yet coherent subset of input to predict the same label”), with the assumption that short rationales are more intuitiv…
Self-rationalization improves LLM as a fine-grained judge
LLM-as-a-judge models have been used for evaluating both human and AI generated content, specifically by providing scores and rationales. Rationales, in addition to increasing transparency, help models learn to calibrate…
Rationalizing Text Matching: Learning Sparse Alignments via Optimal Transport
Selecting input features of top relevance has become a popular method for building self-explaining models. In this work, we extend this selective rationalization approach to text matching, where the goal is to jointly se…
Text Matching