Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive success on many benchmarks for mathematical reasoning. However, there is growing concern that some of this performance actually reflects dataset contamination, where data closely resembling benchmark questions leaks into the training data, instead of true reasoning ability. To investigate this claim rigorously, we commission Grade School Math 1000 (GSM1k). GSM1k is designed to mirror the style and complexity of the established GSM8k benchmark, the gold standard for measuring elementary mathematical reasoning. We ensure that the two benchmarks are comparable across important metrics such as human solve rates, number of steps in solution, answer magnitude, and more. When evaluating leading open- and closed-source LLMs on GSM1k, we observe accuracy drops of up to 13%, with several families of models (e.g., Phi and Mistral) showing evidence of systematic overfitting across almost all model sizes. At the same time, many models, especially those on the frontier, (e.g., Gemini/GPT/Claude) show minimal signs of overfitting. Further analysis suggests a positive relationship (Spearman's r^2=0.32) between a model's probability of generating an example from GSM8k and its performance gap between GSM8k and GSM1k, suggesting that many models may have partially memorized GSM8k.

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.

Acquiring high-quality data is often a significant challenge in training machine learning (ML) models for tabular prediction, particularly in privacy-sensitive and costly domains like medicine and finance. Providing natural language instructions to large language models (LLMs) offers an alternative solution. However, it is unclear how effectively instructions leverage the knowledge in LLMs for solving tabular prediction problems. To address this gap, we introduce TABLET, a benchmark of 20 diverse tabular datasets annotated with instructions that vary in their phrasing, granularity, and technicality. Additionally, TABLET includes the instructions' logic and structured modifications to the instructions. We find in-context instructions increase zero-shot F1 performance for Flan-T5 11b by 44% on average and 13% for ChatGPT on TABLET. Also, we explore the limitations of using LLMs for tabular prediction in our benchmark by evaluating instruction faithfulness. We find LLMs often ignore instructions and fail to predict specific instances correctly, even with examples. Our analysis on TABLET shows that, while instructions help LLM performance, learning from instructions for tabular data requires new capabilities.

Machine Learning (ML) models are increasingly used to make critical decisions in real-world applications, yet they have become more complex, making them harder to understand. To this end, researchers have proposed several techniques to explain model predictions. However, practitioners struggle to use these explainability techniques because they often do not know which one to choose and how to interpret the results of the explanations. In this work, we address these challenges by introducing TalkToModel: an interactive dialogue system for explaining machine learning models through conversations. Specifically, TalkToModel comprises of three key components: 1) a natural language interface for engaging in conversations, making ML model explainability highly accessible, 2) a dialogue engine that adapts to any tabular model and dataset, interprets natural language, maps it to appropriate explanations, and generates text responses, and 3) an execution component that constructs the explanations. We carried out extensive quantitative and human subject evaluations of TalkToModel. Overall, we found the conversational system understands user inputs on novel datasets and models with high accuracy, demonstrating the system's capacity to generalize to new situations. In real-world evaluations with humans, 73% of healthcare workers (e.g., doctors and nurses) agreed they would use TalkToModel over baseline point-and-click systems for explainability in a disease prediction task, and 85% of ML professionals agreed TalkToModel was easier to use for computing explanations. Our findings demonstrate that TalkToModel is more effective for model explainability than existing systems, introducing a new category of explainability tools for practitioners. Code & demo released here: https://github.com/dylan-slack/TalkToModel.

As local explanations of black box models are increasingly being employed to establish model credibility in high stakes settings, it is important to ensure that these explanations are accurate and reliable. However, local explanations generated by existing techniques are often prone to high variance. Further, these techniques are computationally inefficient, require significant hyper-parameter tuning, and provide little insight into the quality of the resulting explanations. We identify lack of uncertainty modeling as a main cause of these challenges and develop a novel set of tools for analyzing explanation uncertainty in a Bayesian framework. In particular, we estimate credible intervals (CIs) that capture the uncertainty associated with each feature importance in local explanations. These credible intervals are tight when we have high confidence in the feature importances of a local explanation. The CIs are also informative both for estimating how many perturbations we need to sample -- sampling can proceed until the CIs are sufficiently narrow -- and where to sample -- sampling in regions with high predictive uncertainty leads to faster convergence. We instantiate this framework to generate Bayesian versions of LIME and KernelSHAP. Experimental evaluation with multiple real world datasets and user studies demonstrate the efficacy of our framework and the resulting explanations.

In this paper, we advocate for the study of fairness techniques in low data situations. We propose two algorithms Fairness Warnings and Fair-MAML. The first is a model-agnostic algorithm that provides interpretable boundary conditions for when a fairly trained model may not behave fairly on similar but slightly different tasks within a given domain. The second is a fair meta-learning approach to train models that can be trained through gradient descent with the objective of "learning how to learn fairly". This method encodes more general notions of fairness and accuracy into the model so that it can learn new tasks within a domain both quickly and fairly from only a few training points. We demonstrate experimentally the individual utility of each model using relevant baselines for comparison and provide the first experiment to our knowledge of K-shot fairness, i.e. training a fair model on a new task with only K data points. Then, we illustrate the usefulness of both algorithms as a combined method for training models from a few data points on new tasks while using Fairness Warnings as interpretable boundary conditions under which the newly trained model may not be fair.

The increasing adoption of machine learning tools has led to calls for accountability via model interpretability. But what does it mean for a machine learning model to be interpretable by humans, and how can this be assessed? We focus on two definitions of interpretability that have been introduced in the machine learning literature: simulatability (a user's ability to run a model on a given input) and "what if" local explainability (a user's ability to correctly indicate the outcome to a model under local changes to the input). Through a user study with 1000 participants, we test whether humans perform well on tasks that mimic the definitions of simulatability and "what if" local explainability on models that are typically considered locally interpretable. We find evidence consistent with the common intuition that decision trees and logistic regression models are interpretable and are more interpretable than neural networks. We propose a metric - the runtime operation count on the simulatability task - to indicate the relative interpretability of models and show that as the number of operations increases the users' accuracy on the local interpretability tasks decreases.