Lucas Resck

Tamara Pereira, Erik Nascimento, Lucas E. Resck et al. · cambridge

Explaining node predictions in graph neural networks (GNNs) often boils down to finding graph substructures that preserve predictions. Finding these structures usually implies back-propagating through the GNN, bonding the complexity (e.g., number of layers) of the GNN to the cost of explaining it. This naturally begs the question: Can we break this bond by explaining a simpler surrogate GNN? To answer the question, we propose Distill n' Explain (DnX). First, DnX learns a surrogate GNN via knowledge distillation. Then, DnX extracts node or edge-level explanations by solving a simple convex program. We also propose FastDnX, a faster version of DnX that leverages the linear decomposition of our surrogate model. Experiments show that DnX and FastDnX often outperform state-of-the-art GNN explainers while being orders of magnitude faster. Additionally, we support our empirical findings with theoretical results linking the quality of the surrogate model (i.e., distillation error) to the faithfulness of explanations.

Raphaël Tinarrage, Henrique Ennes, Lucas Resck et al. · cambridge

Binding precedents (súmulas vinculantes) constitute a juridical instrument unique to the Brazilian legal system and whose objectives include the protection of the Federal Supreme Court against repetitive demands. Studies of the effectiveness of these instruments in decreasing the Court's exposure to similar cases, however, indicate that they tend to fail in such a direction, with some of the binding precedents seemingly creating new demands. We empirically assess the legal impact of five binding precedents, 11, 14, 17, 26, and 37, at the highest Court level through their effects on the legal subjects they address. This analysis is only possible through the comparison of the Court's ruling about the precedents' themes before they are created, which means that these decisions should be detected through techniques of Similar Case Retrieval, which we tackle from the angle of Case Classification. The contributions of this article are therefore twofold: on the mathematical side, we compare the use of different methods of Natural Language Processing -- TF-IDF, LSTM, Longformer, and regex -- for Case Classification, whereas on the legal side, we contrast the inefficiency of these binding precedents with a set of hypotheses that may justify their repeated usage. We observe that the TF-IDF models performed slightly better than LSTM and Longformer when compared through common metrics; however, the deep learning models were able to detect certain important legal events that TF-IDF missed. On the legal side, we argue that the reasons for binding precedents to fail in responding to repetitive demand are heterogeneous and case-dependent, making it impossible to single out a specific cause. We identify five main hypotheses, which are found in different combinations in each of the precedents studied.

Lucas E. Resck, Marcos M. Raimundo, Jorge Poco · cambridge

Saliency post-hoc explainability methods are important tools for understanding increasingly complex NLP models. While these methods can reflect the model's reasoning, they may not align with human intuition, making the explanations not plausible. In this work, we present a methodology for incorporating rationales, which are text annotations explaining human decisions, into text classification models. This incorporation enhances the plausibility of post-hoc explanations while preserving their faithfulness. Our approach is agnostic to model architectures and explainability methods. We introduce the rationales during model training by augmenting the standard cross-entropy loss with a novel loss function inspired by contrastive learning. By leveraging a multi-objective optimization algorithm, we explore the trade-off between the two loss functions and generate a Pareto-optimal frontier of models that balance performance and plausibility. Through extensive experiments involving diverse models, datasets, and explainability methods, we demonstrate that our approach significantly enhances the quality of model explanations without causing substantial (sometimes negligible) degradation in the original model's performance.