Forcing an LLM to classify using only human-specified legal concepts costs about 7.34% accuracy, but can speed up human decision-making despite the loss.
Rationalization through Concepts
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Automated predictions require explanations to be interpretable by humans. One type of explanation is a rationale, i.e., a selection of input features such as relevant text snippets from which the model computes the outcome. However, a single overall selection does not provide a complete explanation, e.g., weighing several aspects for decisions. To this end, we present a novel self-interpretable model called ConRAT. Inspired by how human explanations for high-level decisions are often based on key concepts, ConRAT extracts a set of text snippets as concepts and infers which ones are described in the document. Then, it explains the outcome with a linear aggregation of concepts. Two regularizers drive ConRAT to build interpretable concepts. In addition, we propose two techniques to boost the rationale and predictive performance further. Experiments on both single- and multi-aspect sentiment classification tasks show that ConRAT is the first to generate concepts that align with human rationalization while using only the overall label. Further, it outperforms state-of-the-art methods trained on each aspect label independently.
fields
cs.LG 1years
2024 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Regulation of Language Models With Interpretability Will Likely Result In A Performance Trade-Off
Forcing an LLM to classify using only human-specified legal concepts costs about 7.34% accuracy, but can speed up human decision-making despite the loss.