Towards Stable and Explainable Attention Mechanisms

Currently, attention mechanism has become a standard fixture in most state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models, not only due to the outstanding performance it could gain but also due to plausible innate explanations for the behaviors of neural architectures it provides, which is notoriously difficult to analyze. However, recent studies show that attention is unstable against randomness and perturbations during training or testing, such as random seeds and slight perturbation of embedding vectors, which impedes it from becoming a faithful explanation tool. Thus, a natural question is whether we can find some substitute for the current attention that is more stable and could keep the most important characteristics of explanation and prediction of attention. In this paper, to resolve the problem, we provide a rigorous definition of such alternate namely SEAT (<u><b>S</b></u>table and <u><b>E</b></u>xplainable <u><b>At</b></u>tention). Specifically, a SEAT should have the following three properties: (1) Its prediction distribution is enforced to be close to the distribution based on the vanilla attention; (2) Its top-<inline-formula><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$k$</tex-math></inline-formula> indices have large overlaps with those of the vanilla attention; (3) It is robust w.r.t perturbations, i.e., any slight perturbation on SEAT will not change the prediction distribution too much, which implicitly indicates that it is stable to randomness and perturbations. To further improve the interpretability stability against perturbations, based on SEAT we provide another definition called SEAT++. Then we propose a method to get a SEAT++, which could be considered an ad hoc modification for canonical attention. Finally, through intensive experiments on various datasets, we compare our SEAT and SEAT++ with other baseline methods using RNN, BiLSTM, and BERT architectures via six different evaluation metrics for model interpretation, stability, and accuracy. Results show that SEAT and SEAT++ are more stable against different perturbations and randomness while also keeping the explainability of attention, which indicates they provide more faithful explanations. Moreover, compared with vanilla attention, there is almost no utility (accuracy) degradation for SEAT and SEAT++.