REVIEW 1 cited by
Towards Faithful Natural Language Explanations: A Study Using Activation Patching in Large Language Models
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
Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of generating persuasive Natural Language Explanations (NLEs) to justify their answers. However, the faithfulness of these explanations should not be readily trusted at face value. Recent studies have proposed various methods to measure the faithfulness of NLEs, typically by inserting perturbations at the explanation or feature level. We argue that these approaches are neither comprehensive nor correctly designed according to the established definition of faithfulness. Moreover, we highlight the risks of grounding faithfulness findings on out-of-distribution samples. In this work, we leverage a causal mediation technique called activation patching, to measure the faithfulness of an explanation towards supporting the explained answer. Our proposed metric, Causal Faithfulness quantifies the consistency of causal attributions between explanations and the corresponding model outputs as the indicator of faithfulness. We experimented across models varying from 2B to 27B parameters and found that models that underwent alignment tuning tend to produce more faithful and plausible explanations. We find that Causal Faithfulness is a promising improvement over existing faithfulness tests by taking into account the model's internal computations and avoiding out of distribution concerns that could otherwise undermine the validity of faithfulness assessments. We release the code in \url{https://github.com/wj210/Causal-Faithfulness}
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Debiasing CLIP: Interpreting and Correcting Bias in Attention Heads
Using wrong/correct hard-sample head comparisons, LTC finds spurious CLIP attention heads and corrects them to raise worst-group accuracy on biased benchmarks.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.