| Challenge: | Recent research suggests that practitioners prefer examining language explanations that explain sub-groups of examples. |
| Approach: | They propose a model-agnostic natural language explainer that generates faithful explanations of classifier rationale for structured classification tasks. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model-agnostic natural language explainer generates faithful explanations of classifier rationale for structured classification tasks. |
Similar Papers
Multi-Level Explanations for Generative Language Models (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Lucas Monteiro Paes, Dennis Wei, Hyo Jin Do, Hendrik Strobelt, Ronny Luss, Amit Dhurandhar, Manish Nagireddy, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, Prasanna Sattigeri, Werner Geyer, Soumya Ghosh
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) are being used for context-grounded tasks like summarizing meetings and answering doctors' questions. |
| Approach: | They propose a technique to provide explanations for context-grounded text generation by assigning scores to parts of the context to quantify their influence on the model output. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework can provide more faithful explanations of generated output than available alternatives, including LLM self-explanations. |
NILE : Natural Language Inference with Faithful Natural Language Explanations (2020.acl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent growth in popularity of deep learning models on NLP classification tasks has accompanied the need for generating some form of natural language explanation of predicted labels. |
| Approach: | They propose a novel method which generates labels along with its faithful explanations. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method is more accurate than previously reported methods and has higher sensitivity than previous methods. |
Explain Yourself! Leveraging Language Models for Commonsense Reasoning (P19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Empirical results indicate that we can effectively leverage language models for commonsense reasoning. |
| Approach: | They propose to use commonsense auto-generated explanations to train language models to generate explanations that can be used during training and inference in a commonsensense Auto-Generated Explanation framework. |
| Outcome: | Empirical results show that the proposed framework improves on the commonsenseQA task by 10%. |
Human-grounded Evaluations of Explanation Methods for Text Classification (D19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) is aimed at providing explanations for decisions made by AI systems. |
| Approach: | They propose to use model-agnostic and model-specific explanation methods for CNNs for text classification to provide human-grounded evaluations. |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods could be used to explain models' results and improve AIs and humans in many cases. |
Generating Hierarchical Explanations on Text Classification via Feature Interaction Detection (2020.acl-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods for generating explanations for neural networks ignore feature interactions between words and phrases. |
| Approach: | They propose to build hierarchical explanations by detecting feature interactions by combining words and phrases at different levels of the hierarchy. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method is evaluated on two benchmark datasets, via automatic and human evaluations. |
FLamE: Few-shot Learning from Natural Language Explanations (2023.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent work has shown limited utility of natural language explanations in improving classification. |
| Approach: | They propose a two-stage few-shot learning framework that generates explanations and fine-tunes a smaller model with generated explanations. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework increases inference accuracy over strong baselines, but human evaluation reveals that the majority of generated explanations does not adequately justify classification decisions. |
Towards Explainable NLP: A Generative Explanation Framework for Text Classification (P19-1)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing approaches for explainable machine learning systems focus on interpreting outputs or connections between inputs and outputs. |
| Approach: | They propose a generative explanation framework that learns to make classification decisions and generates fine-grained explanations at the same time. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework surpasses all baselines on two datasets and generates concise explanations at the same time. |
FaithLM: Towards Faithful Explanations for Large Language Models (2026.eacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Yu-Neng Chuang, Guanchu Wang, Chia-Yuan Chang, Ruixiang Tang, Shaochen Zhong, Fan Yang, Andrew Wen, Mengnan Du, Xuanting Cai, Vladimir Braverman, Xia Hu
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) produce natural language explanations, but they lack faithfulness and do not reflect the evidence the model uses to decide. |
| Approach: | They propose a model-agnostic framework that evaluates and improves the faithfulness of LLM explanations without token masking or task-specific heuristics. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework improves faithfulness of large language models without masking or heuristics. |
Leakage-Adjusted Simulatability: Can Models Generate Non-Trivial Explanations of Their Behavior in Natural Language? (2020.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing models that generate NL explanations for tasks have been evaluated on the basis of surface-level similarities to human explanations, both through automatic metrics like BLEU and human evaluations. |
| Approach: | They propose to use a model as a proxy for a human observer to evaluate NL explanations from the model simulatability perspective. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model-generated explanations are evaluated on the basis of surface-level similarities to human explanations, both through automatic metrics like BLEU and human evaluations. |
Explaining Language Model Predictions with High-Impact Concepts (2024.findings-eacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing methods to explain large language models (LLMs) are mostly correlational and lack causal features due to compositional nature of languages. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework to provide impact-aware explanations for large language models that are robust to feature changes and influential to the model’s predictions. |
| Outcome: | The proposed explanations improve on real and synthetic tasks and are robust to feature changes and influential to the model’s predictions. |