Towards Transparent and Explainable Attention Models
Akash Kumar Mohankumar, Preksha Nema, Sharan Narasimhan, Mitesh M. Khapra, Balaji Vasan Srinivasan, Balaraman Ravindran
Abstract
Recent studies on interpretability of attention distributions have led to notions of faithful and plausible explanations for a model's predictions. Attention distributions can be considered a faithful explanation if a higher attention weight implies a greater impact on the model's prediction. They can be considered a plausible explanation if they provide a human-understandable justification for the model's predictions. In this work, we first explain why current attention mechanisms in LSTM based encoders can neither provide a faithful nor a plausible explanation of the model's predictions. We observe that in LSTM based encoders the hidden representations at different time-steps are very similar to each other (high conicity) and attention weights in these situations do not carry much meaning because even a random permutation of the attention weights does not affect the model's predictions. Based on experiments on a wide variety of tasks and datasets, we observe attention distributions often attribute the model's predictions to unimportant words such as punctuation and fail to offer a plausible explanation for the predictions. To make attention mechanisms more faithful and plausible, we propose a modified LSTM cell with a diversity-driven training objective that ensures that the hidden representations learned at different time steps are diverse. We show that the resulting attention distributions offer more transparency as they (i) provide a more precise importance ranking of the hidden states (ii) are better indicative of words important for the model's predictions (iii) correlate better with gradient-based attribution methods. Human evaluations indicate that the attention distributions learned by our model offer a plausible explanation of the model's predictions. Our code has been made publicly available at https://github.com/akashkm99/Interpretable-Attention
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 a36ea2c2-9534-4fda-bb1b-91d19ce56a21Cited by top-tier papers17
- Interpretable and Generalizable Graph Learning via Stochastic Attention MechanismSiqi Miao, Mia Liu, Pan LiICML 2022 · 288 citations
- Rethinking Attention-Model Explainability through Faithfulness Violation TestYibing Liu, Haoliang Li, Yangyang Guo, Chenqi Kong et al.ICML 2022 · 60 citations
- Understanding Interlocking Dynamics of Cooperative RationalizationMo Yu, Yang Zhang, Shiyu Chang, Tommi S. JaakkolaNeurIPS 2021 · 52 citations
- MARTA: Leveraging Human Rationales for Explainable Text ClassificationInes Arous, Ljiljana Dolamic, Jie Yang, Akansha Bhardwaj et al.AAAI 2021 · 47 citations
- Attention-Aligned Transformer for Image CaptioningZhengcong FeiAAAI 2022 · 42 citations
Related papers
- More Identifiable yet Equally Performant Transformers for Text ClassificationRishabh Bhardwaj, Navonil Majumder, Soujanya Poria, Eduard H. HovyACL 2021
- Improving the Faithfulness of Attention-based Explanations with Task-specific Information for Text ClassificationGeorge Chrysostomou, Nikolaos AletrasACL 2021
- Attention-based Interpretability with Concept TransformersMattia Rigotti, Christoph Miksovic, Ioana Giurgiu, Thomas Gschwind et al.ICLR 2022 · 77 citations
- Why Attentions May Not Be Interpretable?Bing Bai, Jian Liang, Guanhua Zhang, Hao Li et al.KDD 2021 · 51 citations
- SEAT: Stable and Explainable AttentionLijie Hu, Yixin Liu, Ninghao Liu, Mengdi Huai et al.AAAI 2023 · 30 citations
