Compositional generalization benchmarks seek to assess whether models can accurately compute meanings for novel sentences, but operationalize this in terms of logical form (LF) prediction. This raises the concern that semantically irrelevant details of the chosen LFs could shape model performance. We argue that this concern is realized for the COGS benchmark (Kim and Linzen, 2020). COGS poses generalization splits that appear impossible for present-day models, which could be taken as an indictment of those models. However, we show that the negative results trace to incidental features of COGS LFs. Converting these LFs to semantically equivalent ones and factoring out capabilities unrelated to semantic interpretation, we find that even baseline models get traction. A recent variable-free translation of COGS LFs suggests similar conclusions, but we observe this format is not semantically equivalent; it is incapable of accurately representing some COGS meanings. These findings inform our proposal for ReCOGS, a modified version of COGS that comes closer to assessing the target semantic capabilities while remaining very challenging. Overall, our results reaffirm the importance of compositional generalization and careful benchmark task design.
Causal abstraction is a promising theoretical framework for explainable artificial intelligence that defines when an interpretable high-level causal model is a faithful simplification of a low-level deep learning system. However, existing causal abstraction methods have two major limitations: they require a brute-force search over alignments between the high-level model and the low-level one, and they presuppose that variables in the high-level model will align with disjoint sets of neurons in the low-level one. In this paper, we present distributed alignment search (DAS), which overcomes these limitations. In DAS, we find the alignment between high-level and low-level models using gradient descent rather than conducting a brute-force search, and we allow individual neurons to play multiple distinct roles by analyzing representations in non-standard bases-distributed representations. Our experiments show that DAS can discover internal structure that prior approaches miss. Overall, DAS removes previous obstacles to conducting causal abstraction analyses and allows us to find conceptual structure in trained neural nets.
Language tasks involving character-level manipulations (e.g., spelling correction, many word games) are challenging for models based in subword tokenization. To address this, we adapt the interchange intervention training method of Geiger et al. (2021) to operate on type-level variables over characters. This allows us to encode robust, position-independent character-level information in the internal representations of subword-based models. We additionally introduce a suite of character-level tasks that systematically vary in their dependence on meaning and sequence-level context. While simple character-level tokenization approaches still perform best on purely form-based tasks like string reversal, our method is superior for more complex tasks that blend form, meaning, and context, such as spelling correction in context and word search games. Our approach also leads to subword-based models with human-intepretable internal representations of characters.
Explainability methods for NLP systems encounter a version of the fundamental problem of causal inference: for a given ground-truth input text, we never truly observe the counterfactual texts necessary for isolating the causal effects of model representations on outputs. In response, many explainability methods make no use of counterfactual texts, assuming they will be unavailable. In this paper, we show that robust causal explainability methods can be created using approximate counterfactuals, which can be written by humans to approximate a specific counterfactual or simply sampled using metadata-guided heuristics. The core of our proposal is the Causal Proxy Model (CPM). A CPM explains a black-box model $\mathcal{N}$ because it is trained to have the same actual input/output behavior as $\mathcal{N}$ while creating neural representations that can be intervened upon to simulate the counterfactual input/output behavior of $\mathcal{N}$. Furthermore, we show that the best CPM for $\mathcal{N}$ performs comparably to $\mathcal{N}$ in making factual predictions, which means that the CPM can simply replace $\mathcal{N}$, leading to more explainable deployed models. Our code is available at https://github.com/frankaging/Causal-Proxy-Model.
Humans have the remarkable ability to recognize and acquire novel visual concepts in a zero-shot manner. Given a high-level, symbolic description of a novel concept in terms of previously learned visual concepts and their relations, humans can recognize novel concepts without seeing any examples. Moreover, they can acquire new concepts by parsing and communicating symbolic structures using learned visual concepts and relations. Endowing these capabilities in machines is pivotal in improving their generalization capability at inference time. In this work, we introduce Zero-shot Concept Recognition and Acquisition (ZeroC), a neuro-symbolic architecture that can recognize and acquire novel concepts in a zero-shot way. ZeroC represents concepts as graphs of constituent concept models (as nodes) and their relations (as edges). To allow inference time composition, we employ energy-based models (EBMs) to model concepts and relations. We design ZeroC architecture so that it allows a one-to-one mapping between a symbolic graph structure of a concept and its corresponding EBM, which for the first time, allows acquiring new concepts, communicating its graph structure, and applying it to classification and detection tasks (even across domains) at inference time. We introduce algorithms for learning and inference with ZeroC. We evaluate ZeroC on a challenging grid-world dataset which is designed to probe zero-shot concept recognition and acquisition, and demonstrate its capability.
The increasing size and complexity of modern ML systems has improved their predictive capabilities but made their behavior harder to explain. Many techniques for model explanation have been developed in response, but we lack clear criteria for assessing these techniques. In this paper, we cast model explanation as the causal inference problem of estimating causal effects of real-world concepts on the output behavior of ML models given actual input data. We introduce CEBaB, a new benchmark dataset for assessing concept-based explanation methods in Natural Language Processing (NLP). CEBaB consists of short restaurant reviews with human-generated counterfactual reviews in which an aspect (food, noise, ambiance, service) of the dining experience was modified. Original and counterfactual reviews are annotated with multiply-validated sentiment ratings at the aspect-level and review-level. The rich structure of CEBaB allows us to go beyond input features to study the effects of abstract, real-world concepts on model behavior. We use CEBaB to compare the quality of a range of concept-based explanation methods covering different assumptions and conceptions of the problem, and we seek to establish natural metrics for comparative assessments of these methods.
Little is known about what makes cross-lingual transfer hard, since factors like tokenization, morphology, and syntax all change at once between languages. To disentangle the impact of these factors, we propose a set of controlled transfer studies: we systematically transform GLUE tasks to alter different factors one at a time, then measure the resulting drops in a pretrained model's downstream performance. In contrast to prior work suggesting little effect from syntax on knowledge transfer, we find significant impacts from syntactic shifts (3-6% drop), though models quickly adapt with continued pretraining on a small dataset. However, we find that by far the most impactful factor for crosslingual transfer is the challenge of aligning the new embeddings with the existing transformer layers (18% drop), with little additional effect from switching tokenizers (<2% drop) or word morphologies (<2% drop). Moreover, continued pretraining with a small dataset is not very effective at closing this gap - suggesting that new directions are needed for solving this problem.
Distillation efforts have led to language models that are more compact and efficient without serious drops in performance. The standard approach to distillation trains a student model against two objectives: a task-specific objective (e.g., language modeling) and an imitation objective that encourages the hidden states of the student model to be similar to those of the larger teacher model. In this paper, we show that it is beneficial to augment distillation with a third objective that encourages the student to imitate the causal computation process of the teacher through interchange intervention training(IIT). IIT pushes the student model to become a causal abstraction of the teacher model - a simpler model with the same causal structure. IIT is fully differentiable, easily implemented, and combines flexibly with other objectives. Compared with standard distillation of BERT, distillation via IIT results in lower perplexity on Wikipedia (masked language modeling) and marked improvements on the GLUE benchmark (natural language understanding), SQuAD (question answering), and CoNLL-2003 (named entity recognition).
In many areas, we have well-founded insights about causal structure that would be useful to bring into our trained models while still allowing them to learn in a data-driven fashion. To achieve this, we present the new method of interchange intervention training(IIT). In IIT, we (1)align variables in the causal model with representations in the neural model and (2) train a neural model to match the counterfactual behavior of the causal model on a base input when aligned representations in both models are set to be the value they would be for a second source input. IIT is fully differentiable, flexibly combines with other objectives, and guarantees that the target causal model is acausal abstraction of the neural model when its loss is minimized. We evaluate IIT on a structured vision task (MNIST-PVR) and a navigational instruction task (ReaSCAN). We compare IIT against multi-task training objectives and data augmentation. In all our experiments, IIT achieves the best results and produces neural models that are more interpretable in the sense that they realize the target causal model.