Evaluating the Utility of Model Explanations for Model Development

One of the motivations for explainable AI is to allow humans to make better and more informed decisions regarding the use and deployment of AI models. But careful evaluations are needed to assess whether this expectation has been fulfilled. Current evaluations mainly focus on algorithmic properties of explanations, and those that involve human subjects often employ subjective questions to test human's perception of explanation usefulness, without being grounded in objective metrics and measurements. In this work, we evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development. We conduct a mixed-methods user study involving image data to evaluate saliency maps generated by SmoothGrad, GradCAM, and an oracle explanation on two tasks: model selection and counterfactual simulation. To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on these tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps, even the synthetic oracle explanation designed to be simple to understand and highly indicative of the answer. Nonetheless, explanations did help users more accurately describe the models. These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.

Modeling Boundedly Rational Agents with Latent Inference Budgets

We study the problem of modeling a population of agents pursuing unknown goals subject to unknown computational constraints. In standard models of bounded rationality, sub-optimal decision-making is simulated by adding homoscedastic noise to optimal decisions rather than explicitly simulating constrained inference. In this work, we introduce a latent inference budget model (L-IBM) that models agents' computational constraints explicitly, via a latent variable (inferred jointly with a model of agents' goals) that controls the runtime of an iterative inference algorithm. L-IBMs make it possible to learn agent models using data from diverse populations of suboptimal actors. In three modeling tasks -- inferring navigation goals from routes, inferring communicative intents from human utterances, and predicting next moves in human chess games -- we show that L-IBMs match or outperform Boltzmann models of decision-making under uncertainty. Inferred inference budgets are themselves meaningful, efficient to compute, and correlated with measures of player skill, partner skill and task difficulty.

Cognitive Dissonance: Why Do Language Model Outputs Disagree with Internal Representations of Truthfulness?

Neural language models (LMs) can be used to evaluate the truth of factual statements in two ways: they can be either queried for statement probabilities, or probed for internal representations of truthfulness. Past work has found that these two procedures sometimes disagree, and that probes tend to be more accurate than LM outputs. This has led some researchers to conclude that LMs "lie" or otherwise encode non-cooperative communicative intents. Is this an accurate description of today's LMs, or can query-probe disagreement arise in other ways? We identify three different classes of disagreement, which we term confabulation, deception, and heterogeneity. In many cases, the superiority of probes is simply attributable to better calibration on uncertain answers rather than a greater fraction of correct, high-confidence answers. In some cases, queries and probes perform better on different subsets of inputs, and accuracy can further be improved by ensembling the two. Code is available at github.com/lingo-mit/lm-truthfulness.

Regularized Conventions: Equilibrium Computation as a Model of Pragmatic Reasoning

We present a model of pragmatic language understanding, where utterances are produced and understood by searching for regularized equilibria of signaling games. In this model (which we call ReCo, for Regularized Conventions), speakers and listeners search for contextually appropriate utterance--meaning mappings that are both close to game-theoretically optimal conventions and close to a shared, ''default'' semantics. By characterizing pragmatic communication as equilibrium search, we obtain principled sampling algorithms and formal guarantees about the trade-off between communicative success and naturalness. Across several datasets capturing real and idealized human judgments about pragmatic implicatures, ReCo matches or improves upon predictions made by best response and rational speech act models of language understanding.

Interpreting User Requests in the Context of Natural Language Standing Instructions

Users of natural language interfaces, generally powered by Large Language Models (LLMs),often must repeat their preferences each time they make a similar request. To alleviate this, we propose including some of a user's preferences and instructions in natural language -- collectively termed standing instructions -- as additional context for such interfaces. For example, when a user states I'm hungry, their previously expressed preference for Persian food will be automatically added to the LLM prompt, so as to influence the search for relevant restaurants. We develop NLSI, a language-to-program dataset consisting of over 2.4K dialogues spanning 17 domains, where each dialogue is paired with a user profile (a set of users specific standing instructions) and corresponding structured representations (API calls). A key challenge in NLSI is to identify which subset of the standing instructions is applicable to a given dialogue. NLSI contains diverse phenomena, from simple preferences to interdependent instructions such as triggering a hotel search whenever the user is booking tickets to an event. We conduct experiments on NLSI using prompting with large language models and various retrieval approaches, achieving a maximum of 44.7% exact match on API prediction. Our results demonstrate the challenges in identifying the relevant standing instructions and their interpretation into API calls.

Decomposing Uncertainty for Large Language Models through Input Clarification Ensembling

Uncertainty decomposition refers to the task of decomposing the total uncertainty of a model into data (aleatoric) uncertainty, resulting from the inherent complexity or ambiguity of the data, and model (epistemic) uncertainty, resulting from the lack of knowledge in the model. Performing uncertainty decomposition for large language models (LLMs) is an important step toward improving the reliability, trustworthiness, and interpretability of LLMs, but this research task is very challenging and remains unresolved. The existing canonical method, Bayesian Neural Network (BNN), cannot be applied to LLMs, because BNN requires training and ensembling multiple variants of models, which is infeasible or prohibitively expensive for LLMs. In this paper, we introduce an uncertainty decomposition framework for LLMs, called input clarifications ensemble, which bypasses the need to train new models. Rather than ensembling models with different parameters, our approach generates a set of clarifications for the input, feeds them into the fixed LLMs, and ensembles the corresponding predictions. We show that our framework shares a symmetric decomposition structure with BNN. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that the proposed framework provides accurate and reliable uncertainty quantification on various tasks. Code will be made publicly available at https://github.com/UCSB-NLP-Chang/llm_uncertainty .

LILO: Learning Interpretable Libraries by Compressing and Documenting Code

While large language models (LLMs) now excel at code generation, a key aspect of software development is the art of refactoring: consolidating code into libraries of reusable and readable programs. In this paper, we introduce LILO, a neurosymbolic framework that iteratively synthesizes, compresses, and documents code to build libraries tailored to particular problem domains. LILO combines LLM-guided program synthesis with recent algorithmic advances in automated refactoring from Stitch: a symbolic compression system that efficiently identifies optimal lambda abstractions across large code corpora. To make these abstractions interpretable, we introduce an auto-documentation (AutoDoc) procedure that infers natural language names and docstrings based on contextual examples of usage. In addition to improving human readability, we find that AutoDoc boosts performance by helping LILO's synthesizer to interpret and deploy learned abstractions. We evaluate LILO on three inductive program synthesis benchmarks for string editing, scene reasoning, and graphics composition. Compared to existing neural and symbolic methods - including the state-of-the-art library learning algorithm DreamCoder - LILO solves more complex tasks and learns richer libraries that are grounded in linguistic knowledge.

Pushdown Layers: Encoding Recursive Structure in Transformer Language Models

Recursion is a prominent feature of human language, and fundamentally challenging for self-attention due to the lack of an explicit recursive-state tracking mechanism. Consequently, Transformer language models poorly capture long-tail recursive structure and exhibit sample-inefficient syntactic generalization. This work introduces Pushdown Layers, a new self-attention layer that models recursive state via a stack tape that tracks estimated depths of every token in an incremental parse of the observed prefix. Transformer LMs with Pushdown Layers are syntactic language models that autoregressively and synchronously update this stack tape as they predict new tokens, in turn using the stack tape to softly modulate attention over tokens -- for instance, learning to "skip" over closed constituents. When trained on a corpus of strings annotated with silver constituency parses, Transformers equipped with Pushdown Layers achieve dramatically better and 3-5x more sample-efficient syntactic generalization, while maintaining similar perplexities. Pushdown Layers are a drop-in replacement for standard self-attention. We illustrate this by finetuning GPT2-medium with Pushdown Layers on an automatically parsed WikiText-103, leading to improvements on several GLUE text classification tasks.

Visual Grounding Helps Learn Word Meanings in Low-Data Regimes

Modern neural language models (LMs) are powerful tools for modeling human sentence production and comprehension, and their internal representations are remarkably well-aligned with representations of language in the human brain. But to achieve these results, LMs must be trained in distinctly un-human-like ways -- requiring orders of magnitude more language data than children receive during development, and without any of the accompanying grounding in perception, action, or social behavior. Do models trained more naturalistically -- with grounded supervision -- exhibit more human-like language learning? We investigate this question in the context of word learning, a key sub-task in language acquisition. We train a diverse set of LM architectures, with and without auxiliary supervision from image captioning tasks, on datasets of varying scales. We then evaluate these models on a broad set of benchmarks characterizing models' learning of syntactic categories, lexical relations, semantic features, semantic similarity, and alignment with human neural representations. We find that visual supervision can indeed improve the efficiency of word learning. However, these improvements are limited: they are present almost exclusively in the low-data regime, and sometimes canceled out by the inclusion of rich distributional signals from text. The information conveyed by text and images is not redundant -- we find that models mainly driven by visual information yield qualitatively different from those mainly driven by word co-occurrences. However, our results suggest that current multi-modal modeling approaches fail to effectively leverage visual information to build more human-like word representations from human-sized datasets.

Eliciting Human Preferences with Language Models

Language models (LMs) can be directed to perform target tasks by using labeled examples or natural language prompts. But selecting examples or writing prompts for can be challenging--especially in tasks that involve unusual edge cases, demand precise articulation of nebulous preferences, or require an accurate mental model of LM behavior. We propose to use *LMs themselves* to guide the task specification process. In this paper, we introduce **Generative Active Task Elicitation (GATE)**: a learning framework in which models elicit and infer intended behavior through free-form, language-based interaction with users. We study GATE in three domains: email validation, content recommendation, and moral reasoning. In preregistered experiments, we show that LMs prompted to perform GATE (e.g., by generating open-ended questions or synthesizing informative edge cases) elicit responses that are often more informative than user-written prompts or labels. Users report that interactive task elicitation requires less effort than prompting or example labeling and surfaces novel considerations not initially anticipated by users. Our findings suggest that LM-driven elicitation can be a powerful tool for aligning models to complex human preferences and values.