Why Attentions May Not Be Interpretable?
Bing Bai, Jian Liang, Guanhua Zhang, Hao Li, Kun Bai, Fei Wang
Abstract
Attention-based methods have played important roles in model interpretations, where the calculated attention weights are expected to highlight the critical parts of inputs (e.g., keywords in sentences). However, recent research found that attention-as-importance interpretations often do not work as we expected. For example, learned attention weights sometimes highlight less meaningful tokens like "[SEP]", ",", and ".", and are frequently uncorrelated with other feature importance indicators like gradient-based measures. A recent debate over whether attention is an explanation or not has drawn considerable interest. In this paper, we demonstrate that one root cause of this phenomenon is the combinatorial shortcuts, which means that, in addition to the highlighted parts, the attention weights themselves may carry extra information that could be utilized by downstream models after attention layers. As a result, the attention weights are no longer pure importance indicators. We theoretically analyze combinatorial shortcuts, design one intuitive experiment to show their existence, and propose two methods to mitigate this issue. We conduct empirical studies on attentionbased interpretation models. The results show that the proposed methods can effectively improve the interpretability of attention mechanisms. CCS CONCEPTS • Computing methodologies → Feature selection; Neural networks.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 049acf10-a14b-44da-9950-4c5fffc30b0bCited by top-tier papers14
- Mechanistically analyzing the effects of fine-tuning on procedurally defined tasksSamyak Jain, Robert Kirk, Ekdeep Singh Lubana, Robert P. Dick et al.ICLR 2024 · 108 citations
- Rethinking Attention-Model Explainability through Faithfulness Violation TestYibing Liu, Haoliang Li, Yangyang Guo, Chenqi Kong et al.ICML 2022 · 60 citations
- Boosting Graph Contrastive Learning via Graph Contrastive SaliencyChunyu Wei, Yu Wang, Bing Bai, Kai Ni et al.ICML 2023 · 31 citations
- Learning to Select Prototypical Parts for Interpretable Sequential Data ModelingYifei Zhang, Neng Gao, Cunqing MaAAAI 2023 · 10 citations
- Neuron-Level Knowledge Attribution in Large Language ModelsZeping Yu, Sophia AnaniadouEMNLP 2024 · 9 citations
Builds on2
- Demographics Should Not Be the Reason of Toxicity: Mitigating Discrimination in Text Classifications with Instance WeightingGuanhua Zhang, Bing Bai, Junqi Zhang, Kun Bai et al.ACL 2020 · 56 citations
- Adversarial Infidelity Learning for Model InterpretationJian Liang, Bing Bai, Yuren Cao, Kun Bai et al.KDD 2020 · 16 citations
Related papers
- More Identifiable yet Equally Performant Transformers for Text ClassificationRishabh Bhardwaj, Navonil Majumder, Soujanya Poria, Eduard H. HovyACL 2021
- Self-Attention Attribution: Interpreting Information Interactions Inside TransformerYaru Hao, Li Dong, Furu Wei, Ke XuAAAI 2021 · 282 citations
- Understanding Attention for Text ClassificationXiaobing Sun, Wei LuACL 2020 · 66 citations
- Towards Transparent and Explainable Attention ModelsAkash Kumar Mohankumar, Preksha Nema, Sharan Narasimhan, Mitesh M. Khapra et al.ACL 2020 · 11 citations
- On Identifiability in TransformersGino Brunner, Yang Liu, Damian Pascual, Oliver Richter et al.ICLR 2020 · 210 citations
