iFlip is an iterative refinement method for generating counterfactual examples using large language models. It incorporates three feedback types—model confidence, feature attribution, and natural language—to guide successive edits. Experiments show iFlip outperforms five state‑of‑the‑art baselines, achieving a 57.8% higher validity rate and improving model performance through counterfactual data augmentation.
arXiv:2607. 22045v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Counterfactual explanations are a prominent approach in explainable artificial intelligence (xAI), providing actionable guidance on what input changes would alter a model's prediction to a desired outcome.
The paper investigates counterfactual self‑explanations in large language models, where a model edits an input minimally to change its own prediction. Experiments on sentiment analysis and natural language inference with ten instruction‑tuned models from the LLaMA‑3 and Qwen‑2.5 families show that larger models produce more faithful, minimal, and human‑aligned counterfactuals. While rationale‑guided prompts improve minimality and alignment, they do not consistently enhance faithfulness, indicating that explanation quality depends heavily on model capacity and requires empirical validation.
arXiv:2606. 02837v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Accurate translation from Natural Language to First-Order Logic (NL-to-FOL) underpins neurosymbolic AI systems and Natural Language Inference (NLI), making the quality of NL-to-FOL benchmarks essential -- yet these datasets have never been rigorously audited.
arXiv:2608. 16747v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Many areas of AI research, such as language model interpretability and chain of thought faithfulness, seek to explain model behaviors.
arXiv:2601. 14590v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) provide human-centric interpretability by identifying the minimal, actionable changes required to alter a machine learning model's prediction.
arXiv:2605. 11632v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Self-generated counterfactual explanations (SCEs) are minimally modified inputs (minimality) generated by large language models (LLMs) that flip their own predictions (validity), offering a causally grounded approach to unraveling black-box LLM behavior.
The paper introduces Fact-Ablated Evaluation (FAE), a framework that iteratively removes cited evidence to test whether large language models (LLMs) adjust their fact‑checking predictions accordingly. Experiments reveal that many off‑the‑shelf LLMs rely more on internal knowledge than on the provided evidence. To address this, the authors propose REAL, a training method that uses counterfactual evidence supervision to encourage LLMs to base veracity judgments on evidence, achieving better evidence‑dependent performance across four datasets.
CoBe is a benchmark that evaluates a model’s ability to perform conversational counterfactual text editing, requiring the model to revise a given scenario based on a hypothetical change while preserving unaffected facts. The dataset includes 2,000 questions across domains such as healthcare, science, engineering, business, and everyday life. Experiments show that current models often default to associational generation rather than maintaining causal structure, and performance does not reliably improve with larger model size or longer outputs.
arXiv:2608. 16627v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Natural language explanations (NLEs) are increasingly used as inputs, for example, as few-shot rationales that influence model behavior in in-context learning (ICL).
The paper argues that user feedback from real interactions is a valuable learning signal for Large Language Models (LLMs), contrary to recent claims that it is too noisy to use. By creating synthetic data with a clear ground truth and testing on naturalistic data, the authors show that revisions guided by user feedback fix targeted issues more often than baseline revisions. They further reveal that current evaluation methods bias against feedback‑driven improvements, as judges tend to overlook genuinely corrected responses and favor inferior baselines.
arXiv:2606. 18049v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Decision-making with deep learning-based time series forecasting requires not only accurate predictions but also actionable insights.
The paper introduces behavioral correctness assumptions as a new framework for evaluating reference-based automatic evaluation methods in natural language generation. It defines a taxonomy of correctness-preserving and correctness-altering assumptions and operationalizes them through controlled response transformations to specify expected scoring behaviors. The authors evaluate a range of lexical, character-level, semantic, LLM-based, and hybrid evaluators, analyzing their behavior across multiple dimensions and finding that no evaluator satisfies all assumptions, revealing distinct behavioral trade-offs not evident from aggregate scores.