On Measuring Faithfulness or Self-consistency of Natural Language Explanations
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) can explain their predictions through post-hoc or Chain-of-Thought (CoT) explanations. But an LLM could make up reasonably sounding explanations that are unfaithful to its underlying reasoning. Recent work has designed tests that aim to judge the faithfulness of post-hoc or CoT explanations. In this work we argue that these faithfulness tests do not measure faithfulness to the models' inner workings -- but rather their self-consistency at output level. Our contributions are three-fold: i) We clarify the status of faithfulness tests in view of model explainability, characterising them as self-consistency tests instead. This assessment we underline by ii) constructing a Comparative Consistency Bank for self-consistency tests that for the first time compares existing tests on a common suite of 11 open LLMs and 5 tasks -- including iii) our new self-consistency measure CC-SHAP. CC-SHAP is a fine-grained measure (not a test) of LLM self-consistency. It compares how a model's input contributes to the predicted answer and to generating the explanation. Our fine-grained CC-SHAP metric allows us iii) to compare LLM behaviour when making predictions and to analyse the effect of other consistency tests at a deeper level, which takes us one step further towards measuring faithfulness by bringing us closer to the internals of the model than strictly surface output-oriented tests. Our code is available at \url{https://github.com/Heidelberg-NLP/CC-SHAP}
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Evaluations of LLMs are still scarce, and it has been argued that they measure self-consistency rather than actual faithfulness.
“Evaluations of LLMs are still scarce, and it has been argued that they measure self-consistency rather than actual faithfulness75.”
From Orchestrating explainable artificial intelligence for multimodal and longitudinal data in medical imaging (2024) · cites this paper as [75]
The Introduction argues that existing tests of LLM explanation faithfulness measure output self-consistency rather than faithfulness. The paper does not say that evaluations of LLMs are scarce; §5.1 instead describes increased interest in faithfulness tests and a lack of comparisons using the same models and data. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2939672.2939778 · Cited by 17,555 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In Section 2.1 we defined faithfulness according to Harrington et al. (1985); Ribeiro et al. (2016); Jacovi and Goldberg (2020), namely: a faithful explanation accurately represents the true reasoning process behind the model’s prediction .”
InfluentialAxiomatic attribution for deep networks
Sundararajan, M., Taly, A., & Yan, Q. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.01365 · Cited by 4,087 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These methods can be divided into i) gradient-based methods (Binder et al., 2016; Sundararajan et al., 2017) that leverage gradients w.r.t. a given instance.”
Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models
Touvron, H., Martin, L., Stone, K., Albert, P., Almahairi, A., Babaei, Y., Bashlykov, N., Batra, S., Bhargava, P., Bhosale, S., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09288 · Cited by 2,604 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Large language models (LLMs) generate answers in various tasks of increasing difficulty, acting as chatbots (OpenAI, 2023; Touvron et al., 2023), as programming (Chen et al., 2021) or scientific writing assistants (Taylor et al., 2022).”
Jain, S., & Wallace, B. C. (2019) · North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1357 · Cited by 2,287 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…mislead them. ii) Attention-based methods correlate high attention weights with high feature importance, which is debated (Serrano and Smith, 2019; Jain and Wallace, 2019; Wiegreffe and Pinter, 2019). iii) Perturbation methods like RISE (Petsiuk et al., 2018) and SHAP (Lundberg and Lee, 2017)…”
RISE: Randomized Input Sampling for Explanation of Black-box ModelsPreprint
Petsiuk, V., Das, A., & Saenko, K. (2018) · British Machine Vision Conference · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.07421 · Cited by 1,702 · cited 2× · see citing works
“But adversarial attacks in the input can mislead them. ii) Attention-based methods correlate high attention weights with high feature importance, which is debated (Serrano and Smith, 2019; Jain and Wallace, 2019; Wiegreffe and Pinter, 2019). iii) Perturbation methods like RISE (Petsiuk et al., 2018) and SHAP (Lundberg…”
Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code
Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., Pinto, H. P. D. O., Kaplan, J., Edwards, H., Burda, Y., Joseph, N., Brockman, G., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2107.03374 · Cited by 1,436 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Large language models (LLMs) generate answers in various tasks of increasing difficulty, acting as chatbots (OpenAI, 2023; Touvron et al., 2023), as programming (Chen et al., 2021) or scientific writing assistants (Taylor et al., 2022).”
Attention is not not Explanation
Wiegreffe, S., & Pinter, Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1002 · Cited by 966 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…methods correlate high attention weights with high feature importance, which is debated (Serrano and Smith, 2019; Jain and Wallace, 2019; Wiegreffe and Pinter, 2019). iii) Perturbation methods like RISE (Petsiuk et al., 2018) and SHAP (Lundberg and Lee, 2017) compute importance scores…”
Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?
Min, S., Lyu, X., Holtzman, A., Artetxe, M., Lewis, M., Hajishirzi, H., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.759 · Cited by 755 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…(CoT) (Wei et al., 2022) explanations that hide their sensitivity to biasing inputs (Turpin et al., 2023); they can be insensitive to label correctness in in-context learning (Min et al., 2022), and can produce correct predictions with irrelevant or misleading prompts (Webson and Pavlick, 2022).”
Serrano, S., & Smith, N. A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1282 · Cited by 690 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…attacks in the input can mislead them. ii) Attention-based methods correlate high attention weights with high feature importance, which is debated (Serrano and Smith, 2019; Jain and Wallace, 2019; Wiegreffe and Pinter, 2019). iii) Perturbation methods like RISE (Petsiuk et al., 2018) and SHAP…”
Galactica: A Large Language Model for Science
Taylor, R., Kardas, M., Cucurull, G., Scialom, T., Hartshorn, A., Saravia, E., Poulton, A., Kerkez, V., & Stojnic, R. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.09085 · Cited by 605 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Large language models (LLMs) generate answers in various tasks of increasing difficulty, acting as chatbots (OpenAI, 2023; Touvron et al., 2023), as programming (Chen et al., 2021) or scientific writing assistants (Taylor et al., 2022).”
Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How Should We Define and Evaluate Faithfulness?
Jacovi, A., & Goldberg, Y. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.386 · Cited by 503 · cited 7× · see citing works
“No Human Study As posited by Jacovi and Goldberg (2020), per definition, “faithfulness should not involve human-judgement on the quality of interpretation, [...]” as “humans cannot judge if an interpretation is faithful or not; if [they did], the explanation would be unnecessary” (Lyu et al.,…”
InfluentialLayer-Wise Relevance Propagation for Neural Networks with Local Renormalization Layers
Binder, A., Montavon, G., Lapuschkin, S., Müller, K., & Samek, W. (2016) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44781-0_8 · Cited by 455 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These methods can be divided into i) gradient-based methods (Binder et al., 2016; Sundararajan et al., 2017) that leverage gradients w.r.t. a given instance.”
Explain Yourself! Leveraging Language Models for Commonsense Reasoning
Rajani, N. F., McCann, B., Xiong, C., & Socher, R. (2019) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1487 · Cited by 421 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Shortcoming of this test are: i) The hand-crafted rules to construct inputs from model explanations are specific for the e-SNLI (Camburu et al., 2018) and ComVE (Wang et al., 2020) datasets, but are not applicable, e.g., for CoS-E (Rajani et al., 2019).”
e-SNLI: Natural language inference with natural language explanations
Camburu, O.-M., Rocktäschel, T., Lukasiewicz, T., & Blunsom, P. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.01193 · Cited by 367 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Shortcoming of this test are: i) The hand-crafted rules to construct inputs from model explanations are specific for the e-SNLI (Camburu et al., 2018) and ComVE (Wang et al., 2020) datasets, but are not applicable, e.g., for CoS-E (Rajani et al., 2019).”
Jiang, A. Q., Sablayrolles, A., Mensch, A., Bamford, C., Chaplot, D. S., Casas, D. D. L., Bressand, F., Lengyel, G., Lample, G., Saulnier, L., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.06825 · Cited by 340 · see citing works
Turpin, M., Michael, J., Perez, E., & Bowman, S. R. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.04388 · Cited by 262 · cited 6× · see citing works
“Moreover, important work used undisclosed and unnamed models (Turpin et al., 2023; Lanham et al., 2023), did not release code (Lanham et al., 2023), or did not work with autoregressive LLMs (Atanasova et al., 2022).”
InfluentialBarzilay, R., & Kan, M.-Y. (2017) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-2 · Cited by 220 · see citing works
Do Prompt-Based Models Really Understand the Meaning of Their Prompts?
Webson, A., & Pavlick, E. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.167 · Cited by 203 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…(CoT) (Wei et al., 2022) explanations that hide their sensitivity to biasing inputs (Turpin et al., 2023); they can be insensitive to label correctness in in-context learning (Min et al., 2022), and can produce correct predictions with irrelevant or misleading prompts (Webson and Pavlick, 2022).”
Penedo, G., Malartic, Q., Hesslow, D., Cojocaru, R., Cappelli, A., Alobeidli, H., Pannier, B., Almazrouei, E., & Launay, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.01116 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Faithfulness Tests for Natural Language ExplanationsPreprint
Atanasova, P., Camburu, O.-M., Lioma, C., Lukasiewicz, T., Simonsen, J., & Augenstein, I. (2023) · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.18029 · Cited by 157 · cited 13× · see citing works
“We count how many task-model combinations show correlations for CC-SHAP with other tasks, and find most correlation and fewest anticorrelation counts for CC-SHAP and Counterfactual Edits (cf. A.8, Tab.”
InfluentialMaking Reasoning Matter: Measuring and Improving Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought ReasoningPreprint
Paul, D., West, R., Bosselut, A., et al. (2024) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.13950 · Cited by 153 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…faithfulness is constantly growing: be-tween the submission for review and publication of this paper, more studies about faithfulness have emerged (Paul et al., 2024; Madsen et al., 2024; Braun and Kunz, 2024; Chuang et al., 2024; Agar-wal et al., 2024; Kunz and Kuhlmann, 2024; Siegel et al.,…”
Towards Faithful Model Explanation in NLP: A Survey
Lyu, Q., Apidianaki, M., & Callison-Burch, C. (2024) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00511 · Cited by 143 · cited 5× · see citing works
“Also not subject to this study about faithfulness of NLEs , is work that aims to increase the faithfulness of post-hoc inter-pretability methods (see Lyu et al., 2022a for overview). deceiving inner workings of “sleeper agents” (Hub-inger et al., 2024) hiding under surface-level self-consistency.”
InfluentialHarvey Friedman's Research on the Foundations of Mathematics
Friedman, H., & Harrington, L. (1985) · Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics · doi:10.1016/s0049-237x(09)x7008-4 · Cited by 143 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In Section 2.1 we defined faithfulness according to Harrington et al. (1985); Ribeiro et al. (2016); Jacovi and Goldberg (2020), namely: a faithful explanation accurately represents the true reasoning process behind the model’s prediction .”
InfluentialWT5?! Training Text-to-Text Models to Explain their PredictionsPreprint
Narang, S., Raffel, C., Lee, K., Roberts, A., Fiedel, N., & Malkan, K. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.14546 · Cited by 141 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, if unfaithful , the LLM could still come up with a reasonably sounding explanation (Narang et al., 2020).”
Selection-Inference: Exploiting Large Language Models for Interpretable Logical ReasoningPreprint
Creswell, A., Shanahan, M., & Higgins, I. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.09712 · Cited by 122 · cited 1× · see citing works
“One line of work – i.a., Sanchez et al., 2023; Creswell et al., 2022; Radhakrishnan et al., 2023; Lyu et al., 2023; Gat et al., 2023 – aims to increase the faithfulness of LLMs by changing the way in which the model generates its final prediction, e.g., using a Python interpreter (Lyu et al., 2023).”
Rethinking Cooperative Rationalization: Introspective Extraction and Complement Control
Yu, M., Chang, S., Zhang, Y., & Jaakkola, T. (2019) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1420 · Cited by 121 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The rationale of this test is that the reasons expressed in a faithful explanation of the original prediction should be sufficient for the model to make the same prediction when the provided reason is used as input (Yu et al., 2019).”
Measuring Association Between Labels and Free-Text Rationales
Wiegreffe, S., Marasović, A., & Smith, N. A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.804 · Cited by 119 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…than relying on self-consistency tests that compare the outputs of models after modifying their inputs, we instead measure self-consistency by analysing how much a model’s input contributes to its answer prediction vs. generated explanation – similar to the rationale of Wiegreffe et al. (2021).”
InfluentialSemEval-2020 Task 4: Commonsense Validation and Explanation
Wang, C., Liang, S., Jin, Y., Wang, Y., Zhu, X., & Zhang, Y. (2020) · International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.semeval-1.39 · Cited by 84 · cited 10× · see citing works
“Moreover, ii) the task-specific setup results in substantial differences of detected unfaithful instances across datasets (up to 14% for e-SNLI vs. up to 40% for ComVE), while the first test applied on the same datasets did not show such large differences.”
InfluentialDon’t Take the Premise for Granted: Mitigating Artifacts in Natural Language Inference
Belinkov, Y., Poliak, A., Shieber, S., Van Durme, B., & Rush, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1084 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Faithful Explanations of Black-box NLP Models Using LLM-generated Counterfactuals
Gat, Y., Calderon, N., Feder, A., et al. (2023) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.00603 · Cited by 66
Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Training
Hubinger, E., Denison, C., Mu, J., Lambert, M., Tong, M., MacDiarmid, M., Lanham, T., Ziegler, D. M., Maxwell, T., Cheng, N., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.05566 · Cited by 46 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Such an internal analysis is crucial to uncover cases where a model displays a plausible output consistency at its surface, while the explanation may be the result of a deceptive “sleeper agent” (Hubinger et al., 2024).”
Uncurated Image-Text Datasets: Shedding Light on Demographic Bias
García, N., Hirota, Y., Wu, Y., & Nakashima, Y. (2023) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52729.2023.00672 · Cited by 45 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This paper uses publicly available datasets and models and therefore could carry on their biases and imperfections (Meister et al., 2022; Garcia et al., 2023).”
Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them
Suzgun, M., Scales, N., Schärli, N., Gehrmann, S., Tay, Y., Chung, H. W., Chowdhery, A., Le, Q. V., Chi, E. H., Zhou, D., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.09261 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Properties and Challenges of LLM-Generated Explanations
Kunz, J., & Kuhlmann, M. (2024) · HCINLP · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.10532 · Cited by 40 · cited 1×
“…publication of this paper, more studies about faithfulness have emerged (Paul et al., 2024; Madsen et al., 2024; Braun and Kunz, 2024; Chuang et al., 2024; Agar-wal et al., 2024; Kunz and Kuhlmann, 2024; Siegel et al., 2024; Matton et al., 2024) – but still remain at the level of self-consistency.”
Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
Lanham, T., Chen, A., Radhakrishnan, A., Steiner, B., Denison, C., Hernandez, D., Li, D., Durmus, E., Hubinger, E., Kernion, J., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.13702 · Cited by 33 · cited 6× · see citing works
“Moreover, important work used undisclosed and unnamed models (Turpin et al., 2023; Lanham et al., 2023), did not release code (Lanham et al., 2023), or did not work with autoregressive LLMs (Atanasova et al., 2022).”
InfluentialParcalabescu, L., & Frank, A. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.18624 · Cited by 32
Self-citationAre Large Language Models Post Hoc Explainers?Preprint
Kroeger, N., Ley, D., Krishna, S., Agarwal, C., & Lakkaraju, H. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.05797 · Cited by 30 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…from 1 Other work that is not pertinent to our study uses LLMs to interpret themselves (Huang et al., 2023) or other ML models (Bills et al., 2023; Kroeger et al., 2023) by prompting LLMs to output numerical importances for their inputs, which ideally correspond to outputs of some…”
Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
Lyu, Q., Havaldar, S., Stein, A., Zhang, L., Rao, D., Wong, E., Apidianaki, M., & Callison-Burch, C. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.13379 · Cited by 23 · cited 1× · see citing works
“One line of work – i.a., Sanchez et al., 2023; Creswell et al., 2022; Radhakrishnan et al., 2023; Lyu et al., 2023; Gat et al., 2023 – aims to increase the faithfulness of LLMs by changing the way in which the model generates its final prediction, e.g., using a Python interpreter (Lyu et al., 2023).”
Can Large Language Models Explain Themselves? A Study of LLM-Generated Self-Explanations
Huang, S., Mamidanna, S., Jangam, S., Zhou, Y., & Gilpin, L. H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.11207 · Cited by 22 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…consistency may look plausible to humans, but could come from 1 Other work that is not pertinent to our study uses LLMs to interpret themselves (Huang et al., 2023) or other ML models (Bills et al., 2023; Kroeger et al., 2023) by prompting LLMs to output numerical importances for their inputs,…”
Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI
Sia, S., Belyy, A., Almahairi, A., et al. (2022) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.12469 · Cited by 17 · cited 1×
“Sia et al. (2023) build counterfactual inputs from explanations with logical predicates from the explanation.”
Faithfulness vs. Plausibility: On the (Un)Reliability of Explanations from Large Language Models
Agarwal, C., Tanneru, S. H., & Lakkaraju, H. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.04614 · Cited by 14
Towards Faithful Model Explanation in NLP: A SurveyPreprint
Lyu, Q., Apidianaki, M., & Callison-Burch, C. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.11326 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Large Language Models As Faithful Explainers
Chuang, Y.-N., Wang, G., Chang, C.-Y., et al. (2024) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.04678 · Cited by 11 · cited 1×
“…review and publication of this paper, more studies about faithfulness have emerged (Paul et al., 2024; Madsen et al., 2024; Braun and Kunz, 2024; Chuang et al., 2024; Agar-wal et al., 2024; Kunz and Kuhlmann, 2024; Siegel et al., 2024; Matton et al., 2024) – but still remain at the level of…”
Question Decomposition Improves the Faithfulness of Model-Generated Reasoning
Radhakrishnan, A., Nguyen, K., Chen, A., Chen, C., Denison, C., Hernandez, D., Durmus, E., Hubinger, E., Kernion, J., Lukošiūtė, K., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.11768 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Stay on topic with Classifier-Free Guidance
Sanchez, G., Fan, H., Spangher, A., Levi, E., Ammanamanchi, P. S., & Biderman, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.17806 · Cited by 8 · cited 1× · see citing works
“One line of work – i.a., Sanchez et al., 2023; Creswell et al., 2022; Radhakrishnan et al., 2023; Lyu et al., 2023; Gat et al., 2023 – aims to increase the faithfulness of LLMs by changing the way in which the model generates its final prediction, e.g., using a Python interpreter (Lyu et al., 2023).”
Siegel, N. Y., Camburu, O.-M., Heess, N., & Perez-Ortiz, M. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.03189 · Cited by 5 · cited 2×
“…publication of this paper, more studies about faithfulness have emerged (Paul et al., 2024; Madsen et al., 2024; Braun and Kunz, 2024; Chuang et al., 2024; Agar-wal et al., 2024; Kunz and Kuhlmann, 2024; Siegel et al., 2024; Matton et al., 2024) – but still remain at the level of self-consistency.”
A Hypothesis-Driven Framework for the Analysis of Self-Rationalising Models
Braun, M., & Kunz, J. (2024) · Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.04787 · Cited by 3 · cited 1×
“…the submission for review and publication of this paper, more studies about faithfulness have emerged (Paul et al., 2024; Madsen et al., 2024; Braun and Kunz, 2024; Chuang et al., 2024; Agar-wal et al., 2024; Kunz and Kuhlmann, 2024; Siegel et al., 2024; Matton et al., 2024) – but still…”
(2017) · doi:10.9728/dcs.2024.25.7.1847 · Cited by 2 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…is debated (Serrano and Smith, 2019; Jain and Wallace, 2019; Wiegreffe and Pinter, 2019). iii) Perturbation methods like RISE (Petsiuk et al., 2018) and SHAP (Lundberg and Lee, 2017) compute importance scores by randomly masking parts of the input and determining the effect this has on the output.”
Walk the talk? Measuring the faithfulness of large language model explanations
Matton, K., Ness, R. O., Guttag, J., & Kıcıman, E. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.14150 · Cited by 1 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…publication of this paper, more studies about faithfulness have emerged (Paul et al., 2024; Madsen et al., 2024; Braun and Kunz, 2024; Chuang et al., 2024; Agar-wal et al., 2024; Kunz and Kuhlmann, 2024; Siegel et al., 2024; Matton et al., 2024) – but still remain at the level of self-consistency.”
Gender Artifacts in Visual DatasetsPreprint
Meister, N., Zhao, D., Wang, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.09191 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Andreas Madsen, Sarath Chandar, and Siva Reddy. 2024. Can large language models explain them- selves? arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07927. · arXiv
- Christoph Molnar. 2022. Interpretable Machine Learn- ing, 2 edition. Lulu. com.
- Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits rea- soning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24824-24837.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pahud de Mortanges, A., Luo, H., Shu, S. Z., Kamath, A., Suter, Y., Shelan, M., Pöllinger, A., & Reyes, M. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01190-w · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Kunz, J. (2024) · Linköping studies in science and technology. Dissertations · doi:10.3384/9789180754712 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
From Illusion to Insight: A Taxonomic Survey of Hallucination Mitigation Techniques in LLMs
Kazlaris, I., Antoniou, E., Diamantaras, K., & Bratsas, C. (2025) · doi:10.20944/preprints202508.1942.v1 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Parcalabescu, L., & Frank, A.
- Affiliations
- Heidelberg University (DE)
- ORCID
- Frank, Anette
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 6048-6089
- ISSN
- 0736-587X (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2311.07466
- OpenAlex
- W4402671681
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4
- FWCI
- 7.97
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (35/1597‐1, INST 35/1597-1, INST35/1597‐1FUGG, 35/1597-1 FUGG)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- self-consistency, large language models, post-hoc explanation, explainability, self-consistency test, SHAP
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
