A Definition of Good Explanations and the Challenges Explaining LLM Outputs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.14838v1
• Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 17:11:27 GMT
• Title: A Definition of Good Explanations and the Challenges Explaining LLM Outputs
• Abstract summary: We propose a definition inspired by the notion of counterfactual explanations.<n>We argue that one must also take into account the interlocutor's prior beliefs in each fact that could be offered in an explanation.
• Score: 5.677745797361044
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: How to define a good explanation is a long-standing philosophical debate which has found recent renewed interest in the context of AI outputs. Explainability is crucial for AI adoption in many contexts, but in order to produce good explanations of AI systems, we must first have an understanding of what good explanations are. In this paper we propose a definition inspired by the notion of counterfactual explanations, however we argue that one must also take into account the interlocutor's prior beliefs in each fact that could be offered in an explanation. We explore the ramifications of this definition for AI explainability and, in particular, why LLM outputs are difficult to produce good explanations for.

Related papers

• FaithLM: Towards Faithful Explanations for Large Language Models [60.45183469474916]
  We introduce FaithLM, a model-agnostic framework that evaluates and improves the faithfulness of large language models.<n>We show that FaithLM consistently increases faithfulness and produces explanations more aligned with human rationales than strong self-explanation baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T09:09:14Z)
• Clash of the Explainers: Argumentation for Context-Appropriate Explanations [6.8285745209093145]
  There is no single approach that is best suited for a given context. For AI explainability to be effective, explanations and how they are presented needs to be oriented towards the stakeholder receiving the explanation. We propose a modular reasoning system consisting of a given mental model of the relevant stakeholder, a reasoner component that solves the argumentation problem generated by a multi-explainer component, and an AI model that is to be explained suitably to the stakeholder of interest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-12T09:52:30Z)
• Providing personalized Explanations: a Conversational Approach [0.5156484100374058]
  We propose an approach for an explainer to communicate personalized explanations to an explainee through having consecutive conversations with the explainee. We prove that the conversation terminates due to the explainee's justification of the initial claim as long as there exists an explanation for the initial claim that the explainee understands and the explainer is aware of.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-21T09:34:41Z)
• LMExplainer: Grounding Knowledge and Explaining Language Models [37.578973458651944]
  Language models (LMs) like GPT-4 are important in AI applications, but their opaque decision-making process reduces user trust, especially in safety-critical areas. We introduce LMExplainer, a novel knowledge-grounded explainer that clarifies the reasoning process of LMs through intuitive, human-understandable explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-29T08:59:44Z)
• Complementary Explanations for Effective In-Context Learning [77.83124315634386]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable capabilities in learning from explanations in prompts. This work aims to better understand the mechanisms by which explanations are used for in-context learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-25T04:40:47Z)
• Explanations from Large Language Models Make Small Reasoners Better [61.991772773700006]
  We show that our method can consistently and significantly outperform finetuning baselines across different settings. As a side benefit, human evaluation shows that our method can generate high-quality explanations to justify its predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-13T04:50:02Z)
• Sensible AI: Re-imagining Interpretability and Explainability using Sensemaking Theory [14.35488479818285]
  We propose an alternate framework for interpretability grounded in Weick's sensemaking theory. We use an application of sensemaking in organizations as a template for discussing design guidelines for Sensible AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-10T17:20:44Z)
• Human Interpretation of Saliency-based Explanation Over Text [65.29015910991261]
  We study saliency-based explanations over textual data. We find that people often mis-interpret the explanations. We propose a method to adjust saliencies based on model estimates of over- and under-perception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T15:20:32Z)
• Diagnosing AI Explanation Methods with Folk Concepts of Behavior [70.10183435379162]
  We consider "success" to depend not only on what information the explanation contains, but also on what information the human explainee understands from it. We use folk concepts of behavior as a framework of social attribution by the human explainee.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T00:19:41Z)
• Making Things Explainable vs Explaining: Requirements and Challenges under the GDPR [2.578242050187029]
  ExplanatorY AI (YAI) builds over XAI with the goal to collect and organize explainable information. We represent the problem of generating explanations for Automated Decision-Making systems (ADMs) into the identification of an appropriate path over an explanatory space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-02T08:48:47Z)
• The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations [61.49776160925216]
  We conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups--people with and without AI background--perceive different types of AI explanations. We find that (1) both groups showed unwarranted faith in numbers for different reasons and (2) each group found value in different explanations beyond their intended design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-28T17:32:04Z)
• A general framework for scientifically inspired explanations in AI [76.48625630211943]
  We instantiate the concept of structure of scientific explanation as the theoretical underpinning for a general framework in which explanations for AI systems can be implemented. This framework aims to provide the tools to build a "mental-model" of any AI system so that the interaction with the user can provide information on demand and be closer to the nature of human-made explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-02T10:32:21Z)

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.