Abstract:Explaining the predictions of AI models is paramount in safety-critical applications, such as in legal or medical domains. One form of explanation for a prediction is an extractive rationale, i.e., a subset of features of an instance that lead the model to give its prediction on that instance. For example, the subphrase “he stole the mobile phone” can be an extractive rationale for the prediction of “Theft”. Previous works on generating extractive rationales usually employ a two-phase model: a selector that selects the most important features (i.e., the rationale) followed by a predictor that makes the prediction based exclusively on the selected features. One disadvantage of these works is that the main signal for learning to select features comes from the comparison of the answers given by the predictor to the ground-truth answers. In this work, we propose to squeeze more information from the predictor via an information calibration method. More precisely, we train two models jointly: one is a typical neural model that solves the task at hand in an accurate but black-box manner, and the other is a selector-predictor model that additionally produces a rationale for its prediction. The first model is used as a guide for the second model. We use an adversarial technique to calibrate the information extracted by the two models such that the difference between them is an indicator of the missed or over-selected features. In addition, for natural language tasks, we propose a language-model-based regularizer to encourage the extraction of fluent rationales. Experimental results on a sentiment analysis task, a hate speech recognition task, as well as on three tasks from the legal domain show the effectiveness of our approach to rationale extraction.

Take It Easy: Label-Adaptive Self-Rationalization for Fact Verification and Explanation Generation

Augmenting the Veracity and Explanations of Complex Fact Checking via Iterative Self-Revision with LLMs

Self-Adaptive Paraphrasing and Preference Learning for Improved Claim Verifiability

Mining the Explainability and Generalization: Fact Verification Based on Self-Instruction

Ask to Know More: Generating Counterfactual Explanations for Fake Claims

Can LLMs Produce Faithful Explanations For Fact-checking? Towards Faithful Explainable Fact-Checking via Multi-Agent Debate

Evaluating Evidence Attribution in Generated Fact Checking Explanations

Characterizing Large Language Models as Rationalizers of Knowledge-intensive Tasks

Learning to generate and evaluate fact-checking explanations with transformers

Tailoring Self-Rationalizers with Multi-Reward Distillation

Tell Me Why: Explainable Public Health Fact-Checking with Large Language Models

Is Explanation the Cure? Misinformation Mitigation in the Short Term and Long Term

Explainable Claim Verification via Knowledge-Grounded Reasoning with Large Language Models

Enhancing the Rationale-Input Alignment for Self-explaining Rationalization

Rationalizing Predictions by Adversarial Information Calibration

Explainable Automated Fact-Checking for Public Health Claims

Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale

Benchmarking the Generation of Fact Checking Explanations

Understanding and Predicting Human Label Variation in Natural Language Inference through Explanation

Retrieval Augmented Fact Verification by Synthesizing Contrastive Arguments