YuanKai Zhang

Wei Liu, Jun Wang, Haozhao Wang et al.

Rationalization is a self-explaining framework for NLP models. Conventional work typically uses the maximum mutual information (MMI) criterion to find the rationale that is most indicative of the target label. However, this criterion can be influenced by spurious features that correlate with the causal rationale or the target label. Instead of attempting to rectify the issues of the MMI criterion, we propose a novel criterion to uncover the causal rationale, termed the Minimum Conditional Dependence (MCD) criterion, which is grounded on our finding that the non-causal features and the target label are \emph{d-separated} by the causal rationale. By minimizing the dependence between the unselected parts of the input and the target label conditioned on the selected rationale candidate, all the causes of the label are compelled to be selected. In this study, we employ a simple and practical measure of dependence, specifically the KL-divergence, to validate our proposed MCD criterion. Empirically, we demonstrate that MCD improves the F1 score by up to $13.7\%$ compared to previous state-of-the-art MMI-based methods. Our code is available at: \url{https://github.com/jugechengzi/Rationalization-MCD}.

Wei Liu, Haozhao Wang, Jun Wang et al.

Conventional works generally employ a two-phase model in which a generator selects the most important pieces, followed by a predictor that makes predictions based on the selected pieces. However, such a two-phase model may incur the degeneration problem where the predictor overfits to the noise generated by a not yet well-trained generator and in turn, leads the generator to converge to a sub-optimal model that tends to select senseless pieces. To tackle this challenge, we propose Folded Rationalization (FR) that folds the two phases of the rationale model into one from the perspective of text semantic extraction. The key idea of FR is to employ a unified encoder between the generator and predictor, based on which FR can facilitate a better predictor by access to valuable information blocked by the generator in the traditional two-phase model and thus bring a better generator. Empirically, we show that FR improves the F1 score by up to 10.3% as compared to state-of-the-art methods.

Yuankai Zhang, Lingxiao Kong, Haozhao Wang et al.

Rationalization models, which select a subset of input text as rationale-crucial for humans to understand and trust predictions-have recently emerged as a prominent research area in eXplainable Artificial Intelligence. However, most of previous studies mainly focus on improving the quality of the rationale, ignoring its robustness to malicious attack. Specifically, whether the rationalization models can still generate high-quality rationale under the adversarial attack remains unknown. To explore this, this paper proposes UAT2E, which aims to undermine the explainability of rationalization models without altering their predictions, thereby eliciting distrust in these models from human users. UAT2E employs the gradient-based search on triggers and then inserts them into the original input to conduct both the non-target and target attack. Experimental results on five datasets reveal the vulnerability of rationalization models in terms of explanation, where they tend to select more meaningless tokens under attacks. Based on this, we make a series of recommendations for improving rationalization models in terms of explanation.

Wei Liu, Jun Wang, Haozhao Wang et al.

A self-explaining rationalization model is generally constructed by a cooperative game where a generator selects the most human-intelligible pieces from the input text as rationales, followed by a predictor that makes predictions based on the selected rationales. However, such a cooperative game may incur the degeneration problem where the predictor overfits to the uninformative pieces generated by a not yet well-trained generator and in turn, leads the generator to converge to a sub-optimal model that tends to select senseless pieces. In this paper, we theoretically bridge degeneration with the predictor's Lipschitz continuity. Then, we empirically propose a simple but effective method named DR, which can naturally and flexibly restrain the Lipschitz constant of the predictor, to address the problem of degeneration. The main idea of DR is to decouple the generator and predictor to allocate them with asymmetric learning rates. A series of experiments conducted on two widely used benchmarks have verified the effectiveness of the proposed method. Codes: \href{https://github.com/jugechengzi/Rationalization-DR}{https://github.com/jugechengzi/Rationalization-DR}.

Wei Liu, Haozhao Wang, Jun Wang et al.

Rationalization is to employ a generator and a predictor to construct a self-explaining NLP model in which the generator selects a subset of human-intelligible pieces of the input text to the following predictor. However, rationalization suffers from two key challenges, i.e., spurious correlation and degeneration, where the predictor overfits the spurious or meaningless pieces solely selected by the not-yet well-trained generator and in turn deteriorates the generator. Although many studies have been proposed to address the two challenges, they are usually designed separately and do not take both of them into account. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective method named MGR to simultaneously solve the two problems. The key idea of MGR is to employ multiple generators such that the occurrence stability of real pieces is improved and more meaningful pieces are delivered to the predictor. Empirically, we show that MGR improves the F1 score by up to 20.9% as compared to state-of-the-art methods. Codes are available at https://github.com/jugechengzi/Rationalization-MGR .

Wei Liu, Haozhao Wang, Jun Wang et al.

Rationalization empowers deep learning models with self-explaining capabilities through a cooperative game, where a generator selects a semantically consistent subset of the input as a rationale, and a subsequent predictor makes predictions based on the selected rationale. In this paper, we discover that rationalization is prone to a problem named \emph{rationale shift}, which arises from the algorithmic bias of the cooperative game. Rationale shift refers to a situation where the semantics of the selected rationale may deviate from the original input, but the predictor still produces accurate predictions based on the deviation, resulting in a compromised generator with misleading feedback. To address this issue, we first demonstrate the importance of the alignment between the rationale and the full input through both empirical observations and theoretical analysis. Subsequently, we introduce a novel approach called DAR (\textbf{D}iscriminatively \textbf{A}ligned \textbf{R}ationalization), which utilizes an auxiliary module pretrained on the full input to discriminatively align the selected rationale and the original input. We theoretically illustrate how DAR accomplishes the desired alignment, thereby overcoming the rationale shift problem. The experiments on two widely used real-world benchmarks show that the proposed method significantly improves the explanation quality (measured by the overlap between the model-selected explanation and the human-annotated rationale) as compared to state-of-the-art techniques. Additionally, results on two synthetic settings further validate the effectiveness of DAR in addressing the rationale shift problem.