REVIEW 2 cited by
Learning to Deceive with Attention-Based Explanations
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Attention mechanisms are ubiquitous components in neural architectures applied to natural language processing. In addition to yielding gains in predictive accuracy, attention weights are often claimed to confer interpretability, purportedly useful both for providing insights to practitioners and for explaining why a model makes its decisions to stakeholders. We call the latter use of attention mechanisms into question by demonstrating a simple method for training models to produce deceptive attention masks. Our method diminishes the total weight assigned to designated impermissible tokens, even when the models can be shown to nevertheless rely on these features to drive predictions. Across multiple models and tasks, our approach manipulates attention weights while paying surprisingly little cost in accuracy. Through a human study, we show that our manipulated attention-based explanations deceive people into thinking that predictions from a model biased against gender minorities do not rely on the gender. Consequently, our results cast doubt on attention's reliability as a tool for auditing algorithms in the context of fairness and accountability.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
On Identifiability in Transformers
Self-attention weights in Transformers are non-identifiable for long sequences, and the paper offers effective attention and Hidden Token Attribution as diagnostic tools.
-
AGNFormer I: Reconstruction of AGN spectra using a probabilistic transformer model
An uncertainty-aware transformer reconstructs masked AGN broad lines and spectral halves with 4-16% flux errors and beats eleven purpose-built Lyα-reconstruction algorithms on a blind benchmark.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.