SCENE: Evaluating Explainable AI Techniques Using Soft Counterfactuals
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) plays a crucial role in enhancing the transparency and accountability of AI models, particularly in natural language processing (NLP) tasks. However, popular XAI methods such as LIME and SHAP have been found to be unstable and potentially misleading, underscoring the need for a standardized evaluation approach. This paper introduces SCENE (Soft Counterfactual Evaluation for Natural language Explainability), a novel evaluation method that leverages large language models (LLMs) to generate Soft Counterfactual explanations in a zero-shot manner. By focusing on token-based substitutions, SCENE creates contextually appropriate and semantically meaningful Soft Counterfactuals without extensive fine-tuning. SCENE adopts Validitysoft and Csoft metrics to assess the effectiveness of model-agnostic XAI methods in text classification tasks. Applied to CNN, RNN, and Transformer architectures, SCENE provides valuable insights into the strengths and limitations of various XAI techniques.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Aug 2024.
Builds on
23 of 31 references.
References · 23
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,690
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
- 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
- 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,278
- 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,454
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
- 2014Striving for Simplicity: The All Convolutional Netcited by 983
- 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
11 more
- 2019Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanationscited by 612
- 2019ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Modelscited by 523
- 2019Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methodscited by 440
- 2019Learning the Difference that Makes a Difference with Counterfactually-Augmented Datacited by 428
- 2019On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity for Explanationscited by 309
- 2018Analysis Methods in Neural Language Processing: A Surveycited by 276
- 2021Polyjuice: Generating Counterfactuals for Explaining, Evaluating, and Improving Modelscited by 219
- 2021Causal Inference in Natural Language Processing: Estimation, Prediction, Interpretation and Beyondcited by 177
- 2020A Diagnostic Study of Explainability Techniques for Text Classificationcited by 158
- 2018Pathologies of Neural Models Make Interpretations Difficultcited by 140
- 2021Counterfactual Evaluation for Explainable AIcited by 15
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.