While recent works have been considerably improving the quality of the natural language explanations (NLEs) generated by a model to justify its predictions, there is very limited research in detecting and alleviating inconsistencies among generated NLEs. In this work, we leverage external knowledge bases to significantly improve on an existing adversarial attack for detecting inconsistent NLEs. We apply our attack to high-performing NLE models and show that models with higher NLE quality do not necessarily generate fewer inconsistencies. Moreover, we propose an off-the-shelf mitigation method to alleviate inconsistencies by grounding the model into external background knowledge. Our method decreases the inconsistencies of previous high-performing NLE models as detected by our attack.

Explanations of neural models aim to reveal a model’s decision-making process for its predictions. However, recent work shows that current methods giving explanations such as saliency maps or counterfactuals can be misleading, as they are prone to present reasons that are unfaithful to the model’s inner workings. This work explores the challenging question of evaluating the faithfulness of natural language explanations (NLEs). To this end, we present two tests. First, we propose a counterfactual input editor for inserting reasons that lead to counterfactual predictions but are not reflected by the NLEs. Second, we reconstruct inputs from the reasons stated in the generated NLEs and check how often they lead to the same predictions. Our tests can evaluate emerging NLE models, proving a fundamental tool in the development of faithful NLEs.

The increasingly large size of modern pre-trained language models not only makes them inherit more human-like biases from the training corpora, but also makes it computationally expensive to mitigate such biases. In this paper, we investigate recent parameter-efficient methods in combination with counterfactual data augmentation (CDA) for bias mitigation. We conduct extensive experiments with prefix tuning, prompt tuning, and adapter tuning on different language models and bias types to evaluate their debiasing performance and abilities to preserve the internal knowledge of a pre-trained model. We find that the parameter-efficient methods (i) are effective in mitigating gender bias, where adapter tuning is consistently the most effective one and prompt tuning is more suitable for GPT-2 than BERT, (ii) areless effective when it comes to racial and religious bias, which may be attributed to the limitations of CDA, and (iii) can perform similarly to or sometimes better than full fine-tuning with improved time and memory efficiency, as well as maintain the internal knowledge in BERT and GPT-2, evaluated via fact retrieval and downstream fine-tuning.