A Hypothesis-Driven Framework for the Analysis of Self-Rationalising Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The self-rationalising capabilities of LLMs are appealing because the generated explanations can give insights into the plausibility of the predictions. However, how faithful the explanations are to the predictions is questionable, raising the need to explore the patterns behind them further. To this end, we propose a hypothesis-driven statistical framework. We use a Bayesian network to implement a hypothesis about how a task (in our example, natural language inference) is solved, and its internal states are translated into natural language with templates. Those explanations are then compared to LLM-generated free-text explanations using automatic and human evaluations. This allows us to judge how similar the LLM's and the Bayesian network's decision processes are. We demonstrate the usage of our framework with an example hypothesis and two realisations in Bayesian networks. The resulting models do not exhibit a strong similarity to GPT-3.5. We discuss the implications of this as well as the framework's potential to approximate LLM decisions better in future work.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Feb 2024.
Builds on
25 of 49 references.
References · 25
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2017A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inferencecited by 2,682
- 2015A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inferencecited by 1,847
- 2023Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and Scalingcited by 1,786
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
- 2018XNLI: Evaluating Cross-lingual Sentence Representationscited by 915
- 2019Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inferencecited by 876
- 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 671
13 more
- 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 599
- 2018e-SNLI: Natural Language Inference with Natural Language Explanationscited by 468
- 2021Persistent Anti-Muslim Bias in Large Language Modelscited by 377
- 2019Explain Yourself! Leveraging Language Models for Commonsense Reasoningcited by 367
- 2018Analysis Methods in Neural Language Processing: A Surveycited by 277
- 2020Measuring Association Between Labels and Free-Text Rationalescited by 160
- 2021Teach Me to Explain: A Review of Datasets for Explainable Natural Language Processingcited by 126
- 2021Reframing Human-AI Collaboration for Generating Free-Text Explanationscited by 125
- 2023Faithfulness Tests for Natural Language Explanationscited by 107
- 2020Leakage-Adjusted Simulatability: Can Models Generate Non-Trivial Explanations of Their Behavior in Natural Language?cited by 95
- 2021Few-Shot Self-Rationalization with Natural Language Promptscited by 83
- 2020SemEval-2020 Task 4: Commonsense Validation and Explanationcited by 42
- 2023Atomic Inference for NLI with Generated Facts as Atomscited by 18
Built on by
Not cited yet.