LExT: Towards Evaluating Trustworthiness of Natural Language Explanations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.06227v1
• Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 17:16:52 GMT
• Title: LExT: Towards Evaluating Trustworthiness of Natural Language Explanations
• Authors: Krithi Shailya, Shreya Rajpal, Gokul S Krishnan, Balaraman Ravindran,
• Abstract summary: We propose a framework for quantifying trustworthiness of natural language explanations, balancing Plausibility and Faithfulness.<n>Applying our domain-agnostic framework to the healthcare domain using public medical datasets, we evaluate six models.<n>Our findings demonstrate significant differences in their ability to generate trustworthy explanations.
• Score: 10.77745803401336
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into high-stakes domains, there have been several approaches proposed toward generating natural language explanations. These explanations are crucial for enhancing the interpretability of a model, especially in sensitive domains like healthcare, where transparency and reliability are key. In light of such explanations being generated by LLMs and its known concerns, there is a growing need for robust evaluation frameworks to assess model-generated explanations. Natural Language Generation metrics like BLEU and ROUGE capture syntactic and semantic accuracies but overlook other crucial aspects such as factual accuracy, consistency, and faithfulness. To address this gap, we propose a general framework for quantifying trustworthiness of natural language explanations, balancing Plausibility and Faithfulness, to derive a comprehensive Language Explanation Trustworthiness Score (LExT) (The code and set up to reproduce our experiments are publicly available at https://github.com/cerai-iitm/LExT). Applying our domain-agnostic framework to the healthcare domain using public medical datasets, we evaluate six models, including domain-specific and general-purpose models. Our findings demonstrate significant differences in their ability to generate trustworthy explanations. On comparing these explanations, we make interesting observations such as inconsistencies in Faithfulness demonstrated by general-purpose models and their tendency to outperform domain-specific fine-tuned models. This work further highlights the importance of using a tailored evaluation framework to assess natural language explanations in sensitive fields, providing a foundation for improving the trustworthiness and transparency of language models in healthcare and beyond.

Related papers

• BELL: Benchmarking the Explainability of Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in natural language processing, yet their decision-making processes often lack transparency. This paper introduces a standardised benchmarking technique, Benchmarking the Explainability of Large Language Models, designed to evaluate the explainability of large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-22T11:15:23Z)
• A Causal Lens for Evaluating Faithfulness Metrics [13.755228271325205]
  We present Causal Diagnosticity, a framework to evaluate faithfulness metrics for natural language explanations.<n>Our framework employs the concept of causal diagnosticity, and uses model-editing methods to generate faithful-unfaithful explanation pairs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T05:35:53Z)
• Trustworthy Alignment of Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Reinforcement Learning [84.94709351266557]
  We focus on the trustworthiness of language models with respect to retrieval augmentation. We deem that retrieval-augmented language models have the inherent capabilities of supplying response according to both contextual and parametric knowledge. Inspired by aligning language models with human preference, we take the first step towards aligning retrieval-augmented language models to a status where it responds relying merely on the external evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-22T09:25:21Z)
• Generative causal testing to bridge data-driven models and scientific theories in language neuroscience [82.995061475971]
  We present generative causal testing (GCT), a framework for generating concise explanations of language selectivity in the brain.<n>We show that GCT can dissect fine-grained differences between brain areas with similar functional selectivity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T15:57:48Z)
• Finetuning Language Models to Emit Linguistic Expressions of Uncertainty [5.591074369497796]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly employed in information-seeking and decision-making tasks. LLMs tend to generate information that conflicts with real-world facts, and their persuasive style can make these inaccuracies appear confident and convincing. In this work, we explore supervised finetuning on uncertainty-augmented predictions as a method to develop models that produce linguistic expressions of uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-18T17:52:53Z)
• TRACE: TRansformer-based Attribution using Contrastive Embeddings in LLMs [50.259001311894295]
  We propose a novel TRansformer-based Attribution framework using Contrastive Embeddings called TRACE. We show that TRACE significantly improves the ability to attribute sources accurately, making it a valuable tool for enhancing the reliability and trustworthiness of large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-06T07:19:30Z)
• Evaluating Consistency and Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are extensively used today across various sectors, including academia, research, business, and finance. Despite their widespread adoption, these models often produce incorrect and misleading information, exhibiting a tendency to hallucinate. This paper aims to evaluate and compare the consistency and reasoning capabilities of both public and proprietary LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-25T10:03:14Z)
• FaithLM: Towards Faithful Explanations for Large Language Models [67.29893340289779]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become proficient in addressing complex tasks by leveraging their internal knowledge and reasoning capabilities. The black-box nature of these models complicates the task of explaining their decision-making processes. We introduce FaithLM to explain the decision of LLMs with natural language (NL) explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T09:09:14Z)
• Commonsense Knowledge Transfer for Pre-trained Language Models [83.01121484432801]
  We introduce commonsense knowledge transfer, a framework to transfer the commonsense knowledge stored in a neural commonsense knowledge model to a general-purpose pre-trained language model. It first exploits general texts to form queries for extracting commonsense knowledge from the neural commonsense knowledge model. It then refines the language model with two self-supervised objectives: commonsense mask infilling and commonsense relation prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-04T15:44:51Z)
• Simple Linguistic Inferences of Large Language Models (LLMs): Blind Spots and Blinds [59.71218039095155]
  We evaluate language understanding capacities on simple inference tasks that most humans find trivial. We target (i) grammatically-specified entailments, (ii) premises with evidential adverbs of uncertainty, and (iii) monotonicity entailments. The models exhibit moderate to low performance on these evaluation sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:41:09Z)
• Natural Language Decompositions of Implicit Content Enable Better Text Representations [52.992875653864076]
  We introduce a method for the analysis of text that takes implicitly communicated content explicitly into account. We use a large language model to produce sets of propositions that are inferentially related to the text that has been observed. Our results suggest that modeling the meanings behind observed language, rather than the literal text alone, is a valuable direction for NLP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T23:45:20Z)
• Explaining Language Models' Predictions with High-Impact Concepts [11.47612457613113]
  We propose a complete framework for extending concept-based interpretability methods to NLP. We optimize for features whose existence causes the output predictions to change substantially. Our method achieves superior results on predictive impact, usability, and faithfulness compared to the baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T14:48:27Z)
• Benchmarking Faithfulness: Towards Accurate Natural Language Explanations in Vision-Language Tasks [0.0]
  Natural language explanations (NLEs) promise to enable the communication of a model's decision-making in an easily intelligible way. While current models successfully generate convincing explanations, it is an open question how well the NLEs actually represent the reasoning process of the models. We propose three faithfulness metrics: Attribution-Similarity, NLE-Sufficiency, and NLE-Comprehensiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-03T08:24:10Z)
• Transparency Helps Reveal When Language Models Learn Meaning [71.96920839263457]
  Our systematic experiments with synthetic data reveal that, with languages where all expressions have context-independent denotations, both autoregressive and masked language models learn to emulate semantic relations between expressions. Turning to natural language, our experiments with a specific phenomenon -- referential opacity -- add to the growing body of evidence that current language models do not well-represent natural language semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-14T02:35:19Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.