arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
​通知:联邦节假日调休:哥伦布日 / 原住民日(Columbus Day / Indigenous Peoples' Day),今日(13日)无更新。
arXiv 2502.18848cs.CLcs.AIcs.LGstat.ME

一种评估忠实度度量的因果视角

A Causal Lens for Evaluating Faithfulness Metrics

UNC Chapel Hill(北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校)

Kerem Zaman, Shashank Srivastava

AI总结:

本文提出因果诊断性框架,用于评估自然语言解释的忠实度度量,通过生成忠实-不忠实解释对,发现Filler Tokens在多任务中表现最佳,连续度量更优但易受噪声影响。

摘要:

大型语言模型(LLMs)提供自然语言解释作为替代于特征归因方法的模型可解释性方法。然而,尽管其具有说服力,它们可能无法忠实反映模型的真实推理。尽管已经提出了几种忠实度度量,但它们通常孤立地进行评估,使得在它们之间进行原则性的比较变得困难。我们提出了因果诊断性,这是一个用于评估自然语言解释忠实度度量的测试框架。我们采用了诊断性概念,并运用模型编辑方法生成忠实-不忠实的解释对。我们的基准测试包括四个任务:事实核查、类比、物体计数和多跳推理。我们评估了著名的忠实度度量,包括事后解释和思维链方法。诊断性能在不同任务和模型之间有所不同,Filler Tokens在整体上表现最佳。此外,连续度量通常比二元度量更具诊断性,但可能对噪声和模型选择敏感。我们的结果突显了对更稳健的忠实度度量的迫切需求。

英文摘要:

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer natural language explanations as an alternative to feature attribution methods for model interpretability. However, despite their plausibility, they may not reflect the model's true reasoning faithfully. While several faithfulness metrics have been proposed, they are often evaluated in isolation, making principled comparisons between them difficult. We present Causal Diagnosticity, a testbed framework for evaluating faithfulness metrics for natural language explanations. We use the concept of diagnosticity, and employ model-editing methods to generate faithful-unfaithful explanation pairs. Our benchmark includes four tasks: fact-checking, analogy, object counting, and multi-hop reasoning. We evaluate prominent faithfulness metrics, including post-hoc explanation and chain-of-thought methods. Diagnostic performance varies across tasks and models, with Filler Tokens performing best overall. Additionally, continuous metrics are generally more diagnostic than binary ones but can be sensitive to noise and model choice. Our results highlight the need for more robust faithfulness metrics.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑