@inproceedings{madsen-etal-2024-self,
title = "Are self-explanations from Large Language Models faithful?",
author = "Madsen, Andreas and
Chandar, Sarath and
Reddy, Siva",
editor = "Ku, Lun-Wei and
Martins, Andre and
Srikumar, Vivek",
booktitle = "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024",
month = aug,
year = "2024",
address = "Bangkok, Thailand",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-acl.19/",
doi = "10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.19",
pages = "295--337",
abstract = "Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at many tasks and will even explain their reasoning, so-called self-explanations. However, convincing and wrong self-explanations can lead to unsupported confidence in LLMs, thus increasing risk. Therefore, it`s important to measure if self-explanations truly reflect the model`s behavior. Such a measure is called interpretability-faithfulness and is challenging to perform since the ground truth is inaccessible, and many LLMs only have an inference API. To address this, we propose employing self-consistency checks to measure faithfulness. For example, if an LLM says a set of words is important for making a prediction, then it should not be able to make its prediction without these words. While self-consistency checks are a common approach to faithfulness, they have not previously been successfully applied to LLM self-explanations for counterfactual, feature attribution, and redaction explanations. Our results demonstrate that faithfulness is explanation, model, and task-dependent, showing self-explanations should not be trusted in general. For example, with sentiment classification, counterfactuals are more faithful for Llama2, feature attribution for Mistral, and redaction for Falcon 40B."
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="madsen-etal-2024-self">
<titleInfo>
<title>Are self-explanations from Large Language Models faithful?</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Andreas</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Madsen</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Sarath</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Chandar</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Siva</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Reddy</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2024-08</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Lun-Wei</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ku</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Andre</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Martins</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Vivek</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Srikumar</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Bangkok, Thailand</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at many tasks and will even explain their reasoning, so-called self-explanations. However, convincing and wrong self-explanations can lead to unsupported confidence in LLMs, thus increasing risk. Therefore, it‘s important to measure if self-explanations truly reflect the model‘s behavior. Such a measure is called interpretability-faithfulness and is challenging to perform since the ground truth is inaccessible, and many LLMs only have an inference API. To address this, we propose employing self-consistency checks to measure faithfulness. For example, if an LLM says a set of words is important for making a prediction, then it should not be able to make its prediction without these words. While self-consistency checks are a common approach to faithfulness, they have not previously been successfully applied to LLM self-explanations for counterfactual, feature attribution, and redaction explanations. Our results demonstrate that faithfulness is explanation, model, and task-dependent, showing self-explanations should not be trusted in general. For example, with sentiment classification, counterfactuals are more faithful for Llama2, feature attribution for Mistral, and redaction for Falcon 40B.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">madsen-etal-2024-self</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.19</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-acl.19/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2024-08</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>295</start>
<end>337</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Are self-explanations from Large Language Models faithful?
%A Madsen, Andreas
%A Chandar, Sarath
%A Reddy, Siva
%Y Ku, Lun-Wei
%Y Martins, Andre
%Y Srikumar, Vivek
%S Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024
%D 2024
%8 August
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Bangkok, Thailand
%F madsen-etal-2024-self
%X Instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at many tasks and will even explain their reasoning, so-called self-explanations. However, convincing and wrong self-explanations can lead to unsupported confidence in LLMs, thus increasing risk. Therefore, it‘s important to measure if self-explanations truly reflect the model‘s behavior. Such a measure is called interpretability-faithfulness and is challenging to perform since the ground truth is inaccessible, and many LLMs only have an inference API. To address this, we propose employing self-consistency checks to measure faithfulness. For example, if an LLM says a set of words is important for making a prediction, then it should not be able to make its prediction without these words. While self-consistency checks are a common approach to faithfulness, they have not previously been successfully applied to LLM self-explanations for counterfactual, feature attribution, and redaction explanations. Our results demonstrate that faithfulness is explanation, model, and task-dependent, showing self-explanations should not be trusted in general. For example, with sentiment classification, counterfactuals are more faithful for Llama2, feature attribution for Mistral, and redaction for Falcon 40B.
%R 10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.19
%U https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-acl.19/
%U https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.19
%P 295-337
Markdown (Informal)
[Are self-explanations from Large Language Models faithful?](https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-acl.19/) (Madsen et al., Findings 2024)
ACL