Search

This paper aims to develop a new attribution method to explain the conflict between individual variables' attributions and their coalition's attribution from a fully new perspective. First, we find that the Shapley value can be reformulated as the allocation of Harsanyi interactions encoded by the AI model. Second, based the re-alloction of interactions, we extend the Shapley value to the attribution of coalitions. Third we ective. We derive the fundamental mechanism behind the conflict. This conflict come from the interaction containing partial variables in their coalition.

Recent research has shown that large language models rely on spurious correlations in the data for natural language understanding (NLU) tasks. In this work, we aim to answer the following research question: Can we reduce spurious correlations by modifying the ground truth labels of the training data? Specifically, we propose a simple yet effective debiasing framework, named Soft Label Encoding (SoftLE). We first train a teacher model with hard labels to determine each sample's degree of relying on shortcuts. We then add one dummy class to encode the shortcut degree, which is used to smooth other dimensions in the ground truth label to generate soft labels. This new ground truth label is used to train a more robust student model. Extensive experiments on two NLU benchmark tasks demonstrate that SoftLE significantly improves out-of-distribution generalization while maintaining satisfactory in-distribution accuracy.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language processing. However, their internal mechanisms are still unclear and this lack of transparency poses unwanted risks for downstream applications. Therefore, understanding and explaining these models is crucial for elucidating their behaviors, limitations, and social impacts. In this paper, we introduce a taxonomy of explainability techniques and provide a structured overview of methods for explaining Transformer-based language models. We categorize techniques based on the training paradigms of LLMs: traditional fine-tuning-based paradigm and prompting-based paradigm. For each paradigm, we summarize the goals and dominant approaches for generating local explanations of individual predictions and global explanations of overall model knowledge. We also discuss metrics for evaluating generated explanations, and discuss how explanations can be leveraged to debug models and improve performance. Lastly, we examine key challenges and emerging opportunities for explanation techniques in the era of LLMs in comparison to conventional machine learning models.

Various attribution methods have been developed to explain deep neural networks (DNNs) by inferring the attribution/importance/contribution score of each input variable to the final output. However, existing attribution methods are often built upon different heuristics. There remains a lack of a unified theoretical understanding of why these methods are effective and how they are related. To this end, for the first time, we formulate core mechanisms of fourteen attribution methods, which were designed on different heuristics, into the same mathematical system, i.e., the system of Taylor interactions. Specifically, we prove that attribution scores estimated by fourteen attribution methods can all be reformulated as the weighted sum of two types of effects, i.e., independent effects of each individual input variable and interaction effects between input variables. The essential difference among the fourteen attribution methods mainly lies in the weights of allocating different effects. Based on the above findings, we propose three principles for a fair allocation of effects to evaluate the faithfulness of the fourteen attribution methods.

In this paper, we focus on mean-field variational Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs) and explore the representation capacity of such BNNs by investigating which types of concepts are less likely to be encoded by the BNN. It has been observed and studied that a relatively small set of interactive concepts usually emerge in the knowledge representation of a sufficiently-trained neural network, and such concepts can faithfully explain the network output. Based on this, our study proves that compared to standard deep neural networks (DNNs), it is less likely for BNNs to encode complex concepts. Experiments verify our theoretical proofs. Note that the tendency to encode less complex concepts does not necessarily imply weak representation power, considering that complex concepts exhibit low generalization power and high adversarial vulnerability. The code is available at https://github.com/sjtu-xai-lab/BNN-concepts.

This paper explains the generalization power of a deep neural network (DNN) from the perspective of interactions. Although there is no universally accepted definition of the concepts encoded by a DNN, the sparsity of interactions in a DNN has been proved, i.e., the output score of a DNN can be well explained by a small number of interactions between input variables. In this way, to some extent, we can consider such interactions as interactive concepts encoded by the DNN. Therefore, in this paper, we derive an analytic explanation of inconsistency of concepts of different complexities. This may shed new lights on using the generalization power of concepts to explain the generalization power of the entire DNN. Besides, we discover that the DNN with stronger generalization power usually learns simple concepts more quickly and encodes fewer complex concepts. We also discover the detouring dynamics of learning complex concepts, which explains both the high learning difficulty and the low generalization power of complex concepts. The code will be released when the paper is accepted.

In this paper, we focus on a typical two-phase phenomenon in the learning of multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs), and we aim to explain the reason for the decrease of feature diversity in the first phase. Specifically, people find that, in the training of MLPs, the training loss does not decrease significantly until the second phase. To this end, we further explore the reason why the diversity of features over different samples keeps decreasing in the first phase, which hurts the optimization of MLPs. We explain such a phenomenon in terms of the learning dynamics of MLPs. Furthermore, we theoretically explain why four typical operations can alleviate the decrease of the feature diversity.

This paper explores the bottleneck of feature representations of deep neural networks (DNNs), from the perspective of the complexity of interactions between input variables encoded in DNNs. To this end, we focus on the multi-order interaction between input variables, where the order represents the complexity of interactions. We discover that a DNN is more likely to encode both too simple interactions and too complex interactions, but usually fails to learn interactions of intermediate complexity. Such a phenomenon is widely shared by different DNNs for different tasks. This phenomenon indicates a cognition gap between DNNs and human beings, and we call it a representation bottleneck. We theoretically prove the underlying reason for the representation bottleneck. Furthermore, we propose a loss to encourage/penalize the learning of interactions of specific complexities, and analyze the representation capacities of interactions of different complexities.

This paper aims to illustrate the concept-emerging phenomenon in a trained DNN. Specifically, we find that the inference score of a DNN can be disentangled into the effects of a few interactive concepts. These concepts can be understood as causal patterns in a sparse, symbolic causal graph, which explains the DNN. The faithfulness of using such a causal graph to explain the DNN is theoretically guaranteed, because we prove that the causal graph can well mimic the DNN's outputs on an exponential number of different masked samples. Besides, such a causal graph can be further simplified and re-written as an And-Or graph (AOG), without losing much explanation accuracy.

Attribution methods provide an insight into the decision-making process of machine learning models, especially deep neural networks, by assigning contribution scores to each individual feature. However, the attribution problem has not been well-defined, which lacks a unified guideline to the contribution assignment process. Furthermore, existing attribution methods often built upon various empirical intuitions and heuristics. There still lacks a general theoretical framework that not only can offer a good description of the attribution problem, but also can be applied to unifying and revisiting existing attribution methods. To bridge the gap, in this paper, we propose a Taylor attribution framework, which models the attribution problem as how to decide individual payoffs in a coalition. Then, we reformulate fourteen mainstream attribution methods into the Taylor framework and analyze these attribution methods in terms of rationale, fidelity, and limitation in the framework. Moreover, we establish three principles for a good attribution in the Taylor attribution framework, i.e., low approximation error, correct Taylor contribution assignment, and unbiased baseline selection. Finally, we empirically validate the Taylor reformulations and reveal a positive correlation between the attribution performance and the number of principles followed by the attribution method via benchmarking on real-world datasets., Comment: In the current version, the author information is not complete and there are some mathematical errors in the proof. We need to correct errors and add all co-authors who contribute to the paper. Therefore, we hope to withdraw the manuscript

Back propagation based visualizations have been proposed to interpret deep neural networks (DNNs), some of which produce interpretations with good visual quality. However, there exist doubts about whether these intuitive visualizations are related to the network decisions. Recent studies have confirmed this suspicion by verifying that almost all these modified back-propagation visualizations are not faithful to the model's decision-making process. Besides, these visualizations produce vague "relative importance scores", among which low values can't guarantee to be independent of the final prediction. Hence, it's highly desirable to develop a novel back-propagation framework that guarantees theoretical faithfulness and produces a quantitative attribution score with a clear understanding. To achieve the goal, we resort to mutual information theory to generate the interpretations, studying how much information of output is encoded in each input neuron. The basic idea is to learn a source signal by back-propagation such that the mutual information between input and output should be as much as possible preserved in the mutual information between input and the source signal. In addition, we propose a Mutual Information Preserving Inverse Network, termed MIP-IN, in which the parameters of each layer are recursively trained to learn how to invert. During the inversion, forward Relu operation is adopted to adapt the general interpretations to the specific input. We then empirically demonstrate that the inverted source signal satisfies completeness and minimality property, which are crucial for a faithful interpretation. Furthermore, the empirical study validates the effectiveness of interpretations generated by MIP-IN.

Attribution methods have been developed to understand the decision-making process of machine learning models, especially deep neural networks, by assigning importance scores to individual features. Existing attribution methods often built upon empirical intuitions and heuristics. There still lacks a general and theoretical framework that not only can unify these attribution methods, but also theoretically reveal their rationales, fidelity, and limitations. To bridge the gap, in this paper, we propose a Taylor attribution framework and reformulate seven mainstream attribution methods into the framework. Based on reformulations, we analyze the attribution methods in terms of rationale, fidelity, and limitation. Moreover, We establish three principles for a good attribution in the Taylor attribution framework, i.e., low approximation error, correct contribution assignment, and unbiased baseline selection. Finally, we empirically validate the Taylor reformulations and reveal a positive correlation between the attribution performance and the number of principles followed by the attribution method via benchmarking on real-world datasets.