Brihi Joshi

Dong-Ho Lee, Akshen Kadakia, Brihi Joshi et al. · meta-ai

NLP models are susceptible to learning spurious biases (i.e., bugs) that work on some datasets but do not properly reflect the underlying task. Explanation-based model debugging aims to resolve spurious biases by showing human users explanations of model behavior, asking users to give feedback on the behavior, then using the feedback to update the model. While existing model debugging methods have shown promise, their prototype-level implementations provide limited practical utility. Thus, we propose XMD: the first open-source, end-to-end framework for explanation-based model debugging. Given task- or instance-level explanations, users can flexibly provide various forms of feedback via an intuitive, web-based UI. After receiving user feedback, XMD automatically updates the model in real time, by regularizing the model so that its explanations align with the user feedback. The new model can then be easily deployed into real-world applications via Hugging Face. Using XMD, we can improve the model's OOD performance on text classification tasks by up to 18%.

Brihi Joshi, Aaron Chan, Ziyi Liu et al. · meta-ai

By explaining how humans would solve a given task, human rationales can provide strong learning signal for neural language models (LMs). Explanation regularization (ER) aims to improve LM generalization by pushing the LM's machine rationales (Which input tokens did the LM focus on?) to align with human rationales (Which input tokens would humans focus on?). Though prior works primarily study ER via in-distribution (ID) evaluation, out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization is often more critical in real-world scenarios, yet ER's effect on OOD generalization has been underexplored. In this paper, we introduce ER-Test, a framework for evaluating ER models' OOD generalization along three dimensions: unseen dataset tests, contrast set tests, and functional tests. Using ER-Test, we extensively analyze how ER models' OOD generalization varies with different ER design choices. Across two tasks and six datasets, ER-Test shows that ER has little impact on ID performance but can yield large OOD performance gains. Also, we find that ER can improve OOD performance even with limited rationale supervision. ER-Test's results help demonstrate ER's utility and establish best practices for using ER effectively.

Sahana Ramnath, Brihi Joshi, Skyler Hallinan et al. · allen-ai, uw

Large language models (LMs) are capable of generating free-text rationales to aid question answering. However, prior work 1) suggests that useful self-rationalization is emergent only at significant scales (e.g., 175B parameter GPT-3); and 2) focuses largely on downstream performance, ignoring the semantics of the rationales themselves, e.g., are they faithful, true, and helpful for humans? In this work, we enable small-scale LMs (approx. 200x smaller than GPT-3) to generate rationales that not only improve downstream task performance, but are also more plausible, consistent, and diverse, assessed both by automatic and human evaluation. Our method, MaRio (Multi-rewArd RatIOnalization), is a multi-reward conditioned self-rationalization algorithm that optimizes multiple distinct properties like plausibility, diversity and consistency. Results on five difficult question-answering datasets StrategyQA, QuaRel, OpenBookQA, NumerSense and QASC show that not only does MaRio improve task accuracy, but it also improves the self-rationalization quality of small LMs across the aforementioned axes better than a supervised fine-tuning (SFT) baseline. Extensive human evaluations confirm that MaRio rationales are preferred vs. SFT rationales, as well as qualitative improvements in plausibility and consistency.

Aaron Chan, Zhiyuan Zeng, Wyatt Lake et al. · meta-ai

Language models (LMs) have yielded impressive results on many language reasoning tasks, but their unexpected errors raise doubts about their reasoning abilities. In light of this, there is growing interest in finetuning/prompting LMs with both task instances and their associated free-text rationales (FTRs), which explain the correct reasoning process for predicting the correct task output (i.e., how to be "right for the right reasons"). However, existing finetuning methods fail to improve LM performance, while prompting needs prohibitively large (i.e., >50B) LMs to work well. We propose KNIFE, which shows that reasoning knowledge can be effectively distilled from FTRs into a small (i.e., <1B) LM and improve the LM's performance. First, KNIFE finetunes a teacher LM (given task input and FTR) to predict the task output, transferring reasoning knowledge from the FTRs to the teacher's hidden states. Second, KNIFE finetunes a student LM (given task input only) such that its hidden states are aligned with the teacher's. Thus, the student is endowed with reasoning knowledge but can be used for inference without direct FTR input. On two question-answering datasets, KNIFE outperforms various finetuning and prompting baselines in fully-supervised and low-resource settings. Also, we observe that FTR quality is crucial to KNIFE's performance.

Isabelle Lee, Emmy Liu, Cathy Jiao et al.

Current machine learning models are evaluated through behavioral snapshots, with benchmark accuracies, win rates and outcome-based metrics. Model explanations and evaluations, however, are fundamentally intertwined: understanding why a model produces a behavior can be as important as measuring what it produces. If we trusted interpretability, we argue that it can serve not merely as diagnostics but as a richer and more principled form of model evaluation beyond surface-level performance metrics. We explore three ways interpretability can function evaluatively: (1) fixing problems by identifying the root causes of unwanted behavior, (2) detecting subtly faulty mechanisms that invalidate model outputs, and (3) predicting potential issues before they arise by fully understanding the model's weaknesses. To fulfill its evaluative potential, we argue that interpretability methods must generate claims that are falsifiable, reproducible, and predictive -- that is, interpretability must meet scientific standards.

Brihi Joshi, Keyu He, Sahana Ramnath et al.

Language models today are widely used in education, yet their ability to tailor responses for learners with varied informational needs and knowledge backgrounds remains under-explored. To this end, we introduce ELI-Why, a benchmark of 13.4K "Why" questions to evaluate the pedagogical capabilities of language models. We then conduct two extensive human studies to assess the utility of language model-generated explanatory answers (explanations) on our benchmark, tailored to three distinct educational grades: elementary, high-school and graduate school. In our first study, human raters assume the role of an "educator" to assess model explanations' fit to different educational grades. We find that GPT-4-generated explanations match their intended educational background only 50% of the time, compared to 79% for lay human-curated explanations. In our second study, human raters assume the role of a learner to assess if an explanation fits their own informational needs. Across all educational backgrounds, users deemed GPT-4-generated explanations 20% less suited on average to their informational needs, when compared to explanations curated by lay people. Additionally, automated evaluation metrics reveal that explanations generated across different language model families for different informational needs remain indistinguishable in their grade-level, limiting their pedagogical effectiveness.

Rik Koncel-Kedziorski, Brihi Joshi, Tim Paek

As the adoption of language models advances, so does the need to better represent individual users to the model. Are there aspects of an individual's belief system that a language model can utilize for improved alignment? Following prior research, we investigate this question in the domain of opinion prediction by developing PrimeX, a dataset of public opinion survey data from 858 US residents with two additional sources of belief information: written explanations from the respondents for why they hold specific opinions, and the Primal World Belief survey for assessing respondent worldview. We provide an extensive initial analysis of our data and show the value of belief explanations and worldview for personalizing language models. Our results demonstrate how the additional belief information in PrimeX can benefit both the NLP and psychological research communities, opening up avenues for further study.

Brihi Joshi, Xiang Ren, Swabha Swayamdipta et al.

Language models prompted with a user description or persona are being used to predict the user's preferences and opinions. However, existing approaches to building personas mostly rely on a user's demographic attributes and/or prior judgments, but not on any underlying reasoning behind a user's judgments. We introduce PB&J (Psychology of Behavior and Judgments), a framework that improves LM personas by incorporating potential rationales for why the user could have made a certain judgment. Our rationales are generated by a language model to explicitly reason about a user's behavior on the basis of their experiences, personality traits, or beliefs. Our method employs psychological scaffolds: structured frameworks such as the Big 5 Personality Traits or Primal World Beliefs to help ground the generated rationales in existing theories. Experiments on public opinion and movie preference prediction tasks demonstrate that language model personas augmented with PB&J rationales consistently outperform personas conditioned only on user demographics and / or judgments, including those that use a model's default chain-of-thought, which is not grounded in psychological theories. Additionally, our PB&J personas perform competitively with those using human-written rationales, suggesting the potential of synthetic rationales guided by existing theories.

Keyu He, Tejas Srinivasan, Brihi Joshi et al.

When people query Vision-Language Models (VLMs) but cannot see the accompanying visual context (e.g. for blind and low-vision users), augmenting VLM predictions with natural language explanations can signal which model predictions are reliable. However, prior work has found that explanations can easily convince users that inaccurate VLM predictions are correct. To remedy undesirable overreliance on VLM predictions, we propose evaluating two complementary qualities of VLM-generated explanations via two quality scoring functions. We propose Visual Fidelity, which captures how faithful an explanation is to the visual context, and Contrastiveness, which captures how well the explanation identifies visual details that distinguish the model's prediction from plausible alternatives. On the A-OKVQA and VizWiz tasks, these quality scoring functions are better calibrated with model correctness than existing explanation qualities. We conduct a user study in which participants have to decide whether a VLM prediction is accurate without viewing its visual context. We observe that showing our quality scores alongside VLM explanations improves participants' accuracy at predicting VLM correctness by 11.1%, including a 15.4% reduction in the rate of falsely believing incorrect predictions. These findings highlight the utility of explanation quality scores in fostering appropriate reliance on VLM predictions.

Brihi Joshi, Sriram Venkatapathy, Mohit Bansal et al.

Evaluating creative text such as human-written stories using language models has always been a challenging task -- owing to the subjectivity of multi-annotator ratings. To mimic the thinking process of humans, chain of thought (CoT) generates free-text explanations that help guide a model's predictions and Self-Consistency (SC) marginalizes predictions over multiple generated explanations. In this study, we discover that the widely-used self-consistency reasoning methods cause suboptimal results due to an objective mismatch between generating 'fluent-looking' explanations vs. actually leading to a good rating prediction for an aspect of a story. To overcome this challenge, we propose $\textbf{C}$hain-$\textbf{o}$f-$\textbf{Ke}$ywords (CoKe), that generates a sequence of keywords $\textit{before}$ generating a free-text rationale, that guide the rating prediction of our evaluation language model. Then, we generate a diverse set of such keywords, and aggregate the scores corresponding to these generations. On the StoryER dataset, CoKe based on our small fine-tuned evaluation models not only reach human-level performance and significantly outperform GPT-4 with a 2x boost in correlation with human annotators, but also requires drastically less number of parameters.

Jaspreet Ranjit, Brihi Joshi, Rebecca Dorn et al.

Warning: Contents of this paper may be upsetting. Public attitudes towards key societal issues, expressed on online media, are of immense value in policy and reform efforts, yet challenging to understand at scale. We study one such social issue: homelessness in the U.S., by leveraging the remarkable capabilities of large language models to assist social work experts in analyzing millions of posts from Twitter. We introduce a framing typology: Online Attitudes Towards Homelessness (OATH) Frames: nine hierarchical frames capturing critiques, responses and perceptions. We release annotations with varying degrees of assistance from language models, with immense benefits in scaling: 6.5x speedup in annotation time while only incurring a 3 point F1 reduction in performance with respect to the domain experts. Our experiments demonstrate the value of modeling OATH-Frames over existing sentiment and toxicity classifiers. Our large-scale analysis with predicted OATH-Frames on 2.4M posts on homelessness reveal key trends in attitudes across states, time periods and vulnerable populations, enabling new insights on the issue. Our work provides a general framework to understand nuanced public attitudes at scale, on issues beyond homelessness.

Brihi Joshi, Ziyi Liu, Sahana Ramnath et al.

Among the remarkable emergent capabilities of large language models (LMs) is free-text rationalization; beyond a certain scale, large LMs are capable of generating seemingly useful rationalizations, which in turn, can dramatically enhance their performances on leaderboards. This phenomenon raises a question: can machine generated rationales also be useful for humans, especially when lay humans try to answer questions based on those machine rationales? We observe that human utility of existing rationales is far from satisfactory, and expensive to estimate with human studies. Existing metrics like task performance of the LM generating the rationales, or similarity between generated and gold rationales are not good indicators of their human utility. While we observe that certain properties of rationales like conciseness and novelty are correlated with their human utility, estimating them without human involvement is challenging. We show that, by estimating a rationale's helpfulness in answering similar unseen instances, we can measure its human utility to a better extent. We also translate this finding into an automated score, GEN-U, that we propose, which can help improve LMs' ability to generate rationales with better human utility, while maintaining most of its task performance. Lastly, we release all code and collected data with this project.

Brihi Joshi, Neil Shah, Francesco Barbieri et al.

Contextual embeddings derived from transformer-based neural language models have shown state-of-the-art performance for various tasks such as question answering, sentiment analysis, and textual similarity in recent years. Extensive work shows how accurately such models can represent abstract, semantic information present in text. In this expository work, we explore a tangent direction and analyze such models' performance on tasks that require a more granular level of representation. We focus on the problem of textual similarity from two perspectives: matching documents on a granular level (requiring embeddings to capture fine-grained attributes in the text), and an abstract level (requiring embeddings to capture overall textual semantics). We empirically demonstrate, across two datasets from different domains, that despite high performance in abstract document matching as expected, contextual embeddings are consistently (and at times, vastly) outperformed by simple baselines like TF-IDF for more granular tasks. We then propose a simple but effective method to incorporate TF-IDF into models that use contextual embeddings, achieving relative improvements of up to 36% on granular tasks.

Nishtha Madaan, Gautam Singh, Sameep Mehta et al.

Vast availability of text data has enabled widespread training and use of AI systems that not only learn and predict attributes from the text but also generate text automatically. However, these AI models also learn gender, racial and ethnic biases present in the training data. In this paper, we present the first system that discovers the possibility that a given text portrays a gender stereotype associated with an occupation. If the possibility exists, the system offers counter-evidences of opposite gender also being associated with the same occupation in the context of user-provided geography and timespan. The system thus enables text de-biasing by assisting a human-in-the-loop. The system can not only act as a text pre-processor before training any AI model but also help human story writers write stories free of occupation-level gender bias in the geographical and temporal context of their choice.