Does Self-Rationalization Improve Robustness to Spurious Correlations?
Alexis Ross, Matthew E. Peters, Ana Marasovic
Abstract
Rationalization is fundamental to human reasoning and learning. NLP models trained to produce rationales along with predictions, called self-rationalization models, have been investigated for their interpretability and utility to end-users. However, the extent to which training with human-written rationales facilitates learning remains an under-explored question. We ask whether training models to selfrationalize can aid in their learning to solve tasks for the right reasons. Specifically, we evaluate how training self-rationalization models with free-text rationales affects robustness to spurious correlations in fine-tuned encoderdecoder and decoder-only models of six different sizes. We evaluate robustness to spurious correlations by measuring performance on 1) manually annotated challenge datasets and 2) subsets of original test sets where reliance on spurious correlations would fail to produce correct answers. We find that while self-rationalization can improve robustness to spurious correlations in low-resource settings, it tends to hurt robustness in higher-resource settings. Furthermore, these effects depend on model family and size, as well as on rationale content. Together, our results suggest that explainability can come at the cost of robustness; thus, appropriate care should be taken when training self-rationalizing models with the goal of creating more trustworthy models. 2 Such approaches have also been referred to as explainthen-predict (Camburu et al., 2018) and rationalize-thenpredict (Chen et al., 2022) models. 3 See Wiegreffe et al. ( 2021 ) for a detailed discussion of pipeline and self-rationalization approaches to rationalization.
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 75c3c44b-7137-45e0-a81a-4a7322ed33a8Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on14
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and ComprehensionMike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad et al.ACL 2020 · 1,224 citations
- STaR: Bootstrapping Reasoning With ReasoningEric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, Noah D. GoodmanNeurIPS 2022 · 1,126 citations
- The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt TuningBrian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, Noah ConstantEMNLP 2021 · 94 citations
- Explaining the Efficacy of Counterfactually Augmented DataDivyansh Kaushik, Amrith Setlur, Eduard H. Hovy, Zachary Chase LiptonICLR 2021 · 89 citations
Related papers
- Measuring Association Between Labels and Free-Text RationalesSarah Wiegreffe, Ana Marasovic, Noah A. SmithEMNLP 2021 · 12 citations
- MGR: Multi-generator Based RationalizationWei Liu, Haozhao Wang, Jun Wang, Ruixuan Li et al.ACL 2023 · 7 citations
- Learning Robust Rationales for Model Explainability: A Guidance-Based ApproachShuaibo Hu, Kui YuAAAI 2024 · 11 citations
- Towards Trustworthy Explanation: On Causal RationalizationWenbo Zhang, Tong Wu, Yunlong Wang, Yong Cai et al.ICML 2023 · 25 citations
- QUASER: Question Answering with Scalable Extractive RationalizationAsish Ghoshal, Srinivasan Iyer, Bhargavi Paranjape, Kushal Lakhotia et al.SIGIR 2022 · 2 citations
