Amit Sharma, Emre Kıcıman, Amir Feder, John Guttag, Yair Gat, Nitay Calderon, Katie Matton, Robert Ness, Alexander Chapanin, Andrew Gelman, Iain Pardoe, Bayesian
We have not lifted any functions out of this paper's repositories yet, so there is nothing we have run. If it links a repository, it is listed below.
Some links come from the archived Papers with Code dataset (CC BY-SA 4.0): attribution and licence.
Large language models (LLMs) are capable of generating plausible explanations of how they arrived at an answer to a question. However, these explanations can misrepresent the model's "reasoning" process, i.e., they can be unfaithful. This, in turn, can lead to over-trust and misuse. We introduce a new approach for measuring the faithfulness of LLM explanations. First, we provide a rigorous definition of faithfulness. Since LLM explanations mimic human explanations, they often reference high-level concepts in the input question that purportedly influenced the model. We define faithfulness in terms of the difference between the set of concepts that LLM explanations imply are influential and the set that truly are. Second, we present a novel method for estimating faithfulness that is based on: (1) using an auxiliary LLM to modify the values of concepts within model inputs to create realistic counterfactuals, and (2) using a Bayesian hierarchical model to quantify the causal effects of concepts at both the example-and datasetlevel. Our experiments show that our method can be used to quantify and discover interpretable patterns of unfaithfulness. On a social bias task, we uncover cases where LLM explanations hide the influence of social bias. On a medical question answering task, we uncover cases where LLM explanations provide misleading claims about which pieces of evidence influenced the model's decisions.
The same record, over MCP at https://syntology.ai/mcp:
get_harvested_code_for_paper("2504.14150")
get_code_for_paper("2504.14150")
have("2504.14150")
Connect an agent — have() is free.