REVIEW 1 cited by
Zero-shot LLM-guided Counterfactual Generation: A Case Study on NLP Model Evaluation
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
With the development and proliferation of large, complex, black-box models for solving many natural language processing (NLP) tasks, there is also an increasing necessity of methods to stress-test these models and provide some degree of interpretability or explainability. While counterfactual examples are useful in this regard, automated generation of counterfactuals is a data and resource intensive process. such methods depend on models such as pre-trained language models that are then fine-tuned on auxiliary, often task-specific datasets, that may be infeasible to build in practice, especially for new tasks and data domains. Therefore, in this work we explore the possibility of leveraging large language models (LLMs) for zero-shot counterfactual generation in order to stress-test NLP models. We propose a structured pipeline to facilitate this generation, and we hypothesize that the instruction-following and textual understanding capabilities of recent LLMs can be effectively leveraged for generating high quality counterfactuals in a zero-shot manner, without requiring any training or fine-tuning. Through comprehensive experiments on a variety of propreitary and open-source LLMs, along with various downstream tasks in NLP, we explore the efficacy of LLMs as zero-shot counterfactual generators in evaluating and explaining black-box NLP models.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Interpreting Language Reward Models via Contrastive Explanations
Reward model preferences can be explained by generating counterfactual and semifactual answer variations along 15 hand-picked evaluation attributes and measuring which attribute changes flip the model's preference.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.