LLMs Don’t Know Their Own Decision Boundaries: The Unreliability of Self-Generated Counterfactual Explanations (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Harry Mayne, Ryan Othniel Kearns, Yushi Yang, Andrew M. Bean, Eoin D. Delaney, Chris Russell, Adam Mahdi
| Challenge: | Existing studies on language models' ability to explain their decisions in natural language have focused on self-generated counterfactual explanations (SCEs). |
| Approach: | They evaluate whether LLMs can generate valid counterfactuals and minimal ones . authors suggest that SCEs are, at best, an ineffective explainability tool . |
| Outcome: | The proposed language models can explain their decisions in natural language, the study finds . the models can produce valid counterfactual explanations, but make small edits that fail to change predictions. |
Similar Papers
Can LLMs Explain Themselves Counterfactually? (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Explanations are an important tool for gaining insights into model behavior, calibrating user trust, and ensuring compliance. |
| Approach: | They propose to use self-explanation to prompt models to explain outputs . they find that LLMs struggle to generate SCEs - their prediction often does not agree with their own counterfactual reasoning. |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods can generate SCEs across families, sizes, temperatures, and datasets. |
LLMs for Generating and Evaluating Counterfactuals: A Comprehensive Study (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in NLP tasks, but their efficacy in generating high-quality CFs remains uncertain. |
| Approach: | They compare LLMs' ability to generate CFs that flip the original label and human CF's. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models generate fluent CFs, but struggle to keep the induced changes minimal. |
Parallel Universes, Parallel Languages: A Comprehensive Study on LLM-based Multilingual Counterfactual Example Generation (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Qianli Wang, Van Bach Nguyen, Yihong Liu, Fedor Splitt, Nils Feldhus, Christin Seifert, Hinrich Schuetze, Sebastian Möller, Vera Schmitt
| Challenge: | Large language models excel at generating English counterfactuals but their effectiveness in generating multilingual counterfacts remains unclear. |
| Approach: | They conduct automatic evaluations on both directly generated and derived counterfactuals in six languages and find that cross-lingual perturbations follow common strategic principles. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models show that translation-based counterfactuals offer higher validity than their directly generated counterparts, but still fall short of matching the quality of the original English counterf actuals. |
Self-Critique and Refinement for Faithful Natural Language Explanations (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Existing work has demonstrated that Large Language Models (LLMs) can self-critique and refine their initial outputs, but this capability remains unexplored for improving explanation faithfulness. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework that enables models to improve the faithfulness of their own explanations through an iterative critique and refinement process without external supervision. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework reduces unfaithfulness rates in three datasets and four state-of-the-art LLMs by 36% compared to 54.81% for baseline. |
Reliability of Distribution Predictions by LLMs: Insights from Counterintuitive Pseudo-Distributions (2025.naacl-srw)
Copied to clipboard
Toma Suzuki, Ayuki Katayama, Seiji Gobara, Ryo Tsujimoto, Hibiki Nakatani, Kazuki Hayashi, Yusuke Sakai, Hidetaka Kamigaito, Taro Watanabe
| Challenge: | Recent studies highlight the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for predicting response distributions as a cost-effective survey method. |
| Approach: | They examine whether LLMs can rationally estimate distributions when presented with explanations that are against commonsense. |
| Outcome: | The proposed models can rationally estimate distributions when presented with explanations that are against commonsense, but smaller or less human-optimized models follow explanations uncritically, compared to larger models that resist counterintuitive explanations by leveraging their pretraining-acquired knowledge. |
Prompting Large Language Models for Counterfactual Generation: An Empirical Study (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large language models (LLMs) have made remarkable progress in a wide range of natural language understanding and generation tasks, but their ability to generate counterfactuals has not been examined systematically. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework to evaluate LLMs' ability to generate counterfactuals based on key factors including intrinsic properties and prompt design. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework examines the strengths and weaknesses of large language models (LLMs) and identifies factors that influence their ability to generate counterfactuals. |
Are self-explanations from Large Language Models faithful? (2024.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Instruction-tuned Large Language Models excel at many tasks and will explain their reasoning, so-called self-explanations. |
| Approach: | They propose to employ self-consistency checks to measure faithfulness to LLMs to determine if they are model-dependent and if their reasoning is convincing and wrong. |
| Outcome: | The proposed measures show that self-explanations are explanation, model, and task-dependent and should not be trusted in general. |
Self-AMPLIFY: Improving Small Language Models with Self Post Hoc Explanations (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Autoregressive Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated "emergent abilities" such as in-context learning, instruction following and reasoning. |
| Approach: | They propose a method that generates rationales from post hoc explanation methods applied to small language models to improve their own performance. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method improves on four SLMs and five datasets with strong reasoning abilities. |
Faithfulness Tests for Natural Language Explanations (2023.acl-short)
Copied to clipboard
Pepa Atanasova, Oana-Maria Camburu, Christina Lioma, Thomas Lukasiewicz, Jakob Grue Simonsen, Isabelle Augenstein
| Challenge: | Existing methods for explaining neural models are misleading as they often present reasons that are unfaithful to the model’s inner workings. |
| Approach: | They propose a counterfactual input editor for inserting reasons that lead to counterfacts but are not reflected by the NLEs. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model can evaluate emerging NLE models, proving a fundamental tool in the development of faithful explanations. |
Counterfactuals of Counterfactuals: a back-translation-inspired approach to analyse counterfactual editors (2023.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
George Filandrianos, Edmund Dervakos, Orfeas Menis Mastromichalakis, Chrysoula Zerva, Giorgos Stamou
| Challenge: | Existing explanations for classifiers are counterfactual or contrastive . lack of universal ground truth for counterf actual edits hinders their evaluation . |
| Approach: | They propose a back translation-inspired evaluation methodology that utilises earlier outputs of the explainer as ground truth proxies to investigate the consistency of explainers. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method can provide valuable insights into the behaviour of predictor and explainer models and infer patterns that would otherwise be obscured. |