Explanation Regeneration via Information Bottleneck
Qintong Li, Zhiyong Wu, Lingpeng Kong, Wei Bi
Findings: Interpretability and Analysis of Models for NLP Findings Paper
Session 1: Interpretability and Analysis of Models for NLP (Virtual Poster)
Conference Room: Pier 7&8
Conference Time: July 10, 11:00-12:30 (EDT) (America/Toronto)
Global Time: July 10, Session 1 (15:00-16:30 UTC)
Spotlight Session: Spotlight - Metropolitan West (Spotlight)
Conference Room: Metropolitan West
Conference Time: July 10, 19:00-21:00 (EDT) (America/Toronto)
Global Time: July 10, Spotlight Session (23:00-01:00 UTC)
Keywords:
free-text/natural language explanations
TLDR:
Explaining the black-box predictions of NLP models naturally and accurately is an important open problem in natural language generation. These free-text explanations are expected to contain sufficient and carefully-selected evidence to form supportive arguments for predictions. Thanks to the superio...
You can open the
#paper-P1636
channel in a separate window.
Abstract:
Explaining the black-box predictions of NLP models naturally and accurately is an important open problem in natural language generation. These free-text explanations are expected to contain sufficient and carefully-selected evidence to form supportive arguments for predictions. Thanks to the superior generative capacity of large pretrained language models (PLM), recent work built on prompt engineering enables explanations generated without specific training. However, explanations generated through single-pass prompting often lack sufficiency and conciseness, due to the prompt complexity and hallucination issues. To discard the dross and take the essence of current PLM's results, we propose to produce sufficient and concise explanations via the information bottleneck (EIB) theory. EIB regenerates explanations by polishing the single-pass output of PLM but retaining the information that supports the contents being explained by balancing two information bottleneck objectives. Experiments on two different tasks verify the effectiveness of EIB through automatic evaluation and thoroughly-conducted human evaluation.