Our new X account is live! Follow @wizwand_team for updates
WorkDL logo mark

Post Hoc Explanations of Language Models Can Improve Language Models

About

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in performing complex tasks. Moreover, recent research has shown that incorporating human-annotated rationales (e.g., Chain-of-Thought prompting) during in-context learning can significantly enhance the performance of these models, particularly on tasks that require reasoning capabilities. However, incorporating such rationales poses challenges in terms of scalability as this requires a high degree of human involvement. In this work, we present a novel framework, Amplifying Model Performance by Leveraging In-Context Learning with Post Hoc Explanations (AMPLIFY), which addresses the aforementioned challenges by automating the process of rationale generation. To this end, we leverage post hoc explanation methods which output attribution scores (explanations) capturing the influence of each of the input features on model predictions. More specifically, we construct automated natural language rationales that embed insights from post hoc explanations to provide corrective signals to LLMs. Extensive experimentation with real-world datasets demonstrates that our framework, AMPLIFY, leads to prediction accuracy improvements of about 10-25% over a wide range of tasks, including those where prior approaches which rely on human-annotated rationales such as Chain-of-Thought prompting fall short. Our work makes one of the first attempts at highlighting the potential of post hoc explanations as valuable tools for enhancing the effectiveness of LLMs. Furthermore, we conduct additional empirical analyses and ablation studies to demonstrate the impact of each of the components of AMPLIFY, which, in turn, leads to critical insights for refining in-context learning.

Satyapriya Krishna, Jiaqi Ma, Dylan Slack, Asma Ghandeharioun, Sameer Singh, Himabindu Lakkaraju• 2023

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Commonsense ReasoningCommonsenseQA (test)
Accuracy77.9
41
Causal JudgmentCausal Judgment (test)
Accuracy76.3
9
Ruin NamesRuin Names (test)
Accuracy78.6
9
Snarks detectionSnarks (test)
Accuracy91.6
9
Translation Error DetectionSalient Translation Error Detection (test)
Accuracy60.8
9
Formal Fallacies detectionFormal Fallacies (test)
Accuracy60.1
9
Disambiguation QADisambiguation QA (test)
Accuracy74.5
7
HyperbatonHyperbaton (test)
Accuracy79.7
7
Word SortingWord Sorting (test)
Accuracy43.6
7
Symbolic ReasoningCoin Flip OOD (test)
Accuracy65.7
6
Showing 10 of 10 rows

Other info

Follow for update