Extracting a small subset of crucial rationales from the full input is a key problem in explainability research. The most widely used fundamental criterion for rationale extraction is the maximum mutual information (MMI) criterion. In this paper, we first demonstrate that MMI suffers from diminishing marginal returns. Once part of the rationale has been identified, finding the remaining portions contributes only marginally to increasing the mutual information, making it difficult to use MMI to locate the rest. In contrast to MMI that aims to reproduce the prediction, we seek to identify the parts of the input that the network can actually utilize. This is achieved by comparing how different rationale candidates match the capability space of the weight matrix. The weight matrix of a neural network is typically low-rank, meaning that the linear combinations of its column vectors can only cover part of the directions in a high-dimensional space (high-dimension: the dimensions of an input vector). If an input is fully utilized by the network, it generally matches these directions (e.g., a portion of a hypersphere), resulting in a representation with a high norm. Conversely, if an input primarily falls outside (orthogonal to) these directions, its representation norm will approach zero, behaving like noise that the network cannot effectively utilize. Building on this, we propose using the norms of rationale candidates as an alternative objective to MMI. Through experiments on four text classification datasets and one graph classification dataset using three network architectures (GRUs, BERT, and GCN), we show that our method outperforms MMI and its improved variants in identifying better rationales. We also compare our method with a representative LLM (llama-3.1-8b-instruct) and find that our simple method gets comparable results to it and can sometimes even outperform it.

This study investigates the self-rationalization framework constructed with a cooperative game, where a generator initially extracts the most informative segment from raw input, and a subsequent predictor utilizes the selected subset for its input. The generator and predictor are trained collaboratively to maximize prediction accuracy. In this paper, we first uncover a potential caveat: such a cooperative game could unintentionally introduce a sampling bias during rationale extraction. Specifically, the generator might inadvertently create an incorrect correlation between the selected rationale candidate and the label, even when they are semantically unrelated in the original dataset. Subsequently, we elucidate the origins of this bias using both detailed theoretical analysis and empirical evidence. Our findings suggest a direction for inspecting these correlations through attacks, based on which we further introduce an instruction to prevent the predictor from learning the correlations. Through experiments on six text classification datasets and two graph classification datasets using three network architectures (GRUs, BERT, and GCN), we show that our method significantly outperforms recent rationalization methods.

Abstract Rationalization is a framework that aims to build self-explanatory NLP models by extracting a subset of human-intelligible pieces of their inputting texts. It involves a cooperative game where a selector selects the most human-intelligible parts of the input as the rationale, followed by a predictor that makes predictions based on these selected rationales. Existing literature uses the cross-entropy between the model’s predictions and the ground-truth labels to measure the informativeness of the selected rationales, guiding the selector to choose better ones. In this study, we first theoretically analyze the objective of rationalization by decomposing it into two parts: the model-agnostic informativeness of the rationale candidates and the predictor’s degree of fit. We then provide various empirical evidence to support that, under this framework, the selector tends to sample from a limited small region, causing the predictor to overfit these localized areas. This results in a significant mismatch between the cross-entropy objective and the informativeness of the rationale candidates, leading to suboptimal solutions. To address this issue, we propose a simple yet effective method that introduces random vicinal1 perturbations to the selected rationale candidates. This approach broadens the predictor’s assessment to a vicinity around the selected rationale candidate. Compared to recent competitive methods, our method significantly improves rationale quality (by up to 6.6%) across six widely used classification datasets. The term “vicinal” is borrowed from vicinal risk minimization (Chapelle et al., 2000); “vicinal” means neighboring or adjacent.

An important line of research in the field of explainability is to extract a small subset of crucial rationales from the full input. The most widely used criterion for rationale extraction is the maximum mutual information (MMI) criterion. However, in certain datasets, there are spurious features non-causally correlated with the label and also get high mutual information, complicating the loss landscape of MMI. Although some penalty-based methods have been developed to penalize the spurious features (e.g., invariance penalty, intervention penalty, etc) to help MMI work better, these are merely remedial measures. In the optimization objectives of these methods, spurious features are still distinguished from plain noise, which hinders the discovery of causal rationales. This paper aims to develop a new criterion that treats spurious features as plain noise, allowing the model to work on datasets rich in spurious features as if it were working on clean datasets, thereby making rationale extraction easier. We theoretically observe that removing either plain noise or spurious features from the input does not alter the conditional distribution of the remaining components relative to the task label. However, significant changes in the conditional distribution occur only when causal features are eliminated. Based on this discovery, the paper proposes a criterion for \textbf{M}aximizing the \textbf{R}emaining \textbf{D}iscrepancy (MRD). Experiments on six widely used datasets show that our MRD criterion improves rationale quality (measured by the overlap with human-annotated rationales) by up to $10.4\%$ as compared to several recent competitive MMI variants. Code: \url{https://github.com/jugechengzi/Rationalization-MRD}.