mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Evaluating the Effectiveness of XAI Techniques for Encoder-Based Language Models

arXiv 2501.15374 ↗First posted 26 Jan 2025cs.CL cs.AI cs.CYcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The black-box nature of large language models (LLMs) necessitates the development of eXplainable AI (XAI) techniques for transparency and trustworthiness. However, evaluating these techniques remains a challenge. This study presents a general evaluation framework using four key metrics: Human-reasoning Agreement (HA), Robustness, Consistency, and Contrastivity. We assess the effectiveness of six explainability techniques from five different XAI categories model simplification (LIME), perturbation-based methods (SHAP), gradient-based approaches (InputXGradient, Grad-CAM), Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP), and attention mechanisms-based explainability methods (Attention Mechanism Visualization, AMV) across five encoder-based language models: TinyBERT, BERTbase, BERTlarge, XLM-R large, and DeBERTa-xlarge, using the IMDB Movie Reviews and Tweet Sentiment Extraction (TSE) datasets. Our findings show that the model simplification-based XAI method (LIME) consistently outperforms across multiple metrics and models, significantly excelling in HA with a score of 0.9685 on DeBERTa-xlarge, robustness, and consistency as the complexity of large language models increases. AMV demonstrates the best Robustness, with scores as low as 0.0020. It also excels in Consistency, achieving near-perfect scores of 0.9999 across all models. Regarding Contrastivity, LRP performs the best, particularly on more complex models, with scores up to 0.9371.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Jan 2025.

Builds on

17 of 32 references.

References · 17

  1. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  2. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  3. 2013Visualizing and Understanding Convolutional Networkscited by 2,278
  4. 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,543
  5. 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
  6. 2018e-SNLI: Natural Language Inference with Natural Language Explanationscited by 468
  7. 2020Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performancecited by 396
  8. 2017The (Un)reliability of saliency methodscited by 331
  9. 2022From Anecdotal Evidence to Quantitative Evaluation Methods: A Systematic Review on Evaluating Explainable AIcited by 299
  10. 2015Explaining NonLinear Classification Decisions with Deep Taylor Decompositioncited by 248
  11. 2020A Diagnostic Study of Explainability Techniques for Text Classificationcited by 158
  12. 2020Ground Truth Evaluation of Neural Network Explanations with CLEVR-XAIcited by 125
5 more
  1. 2021What Do We Want From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)? -- A Stakeholder Perspective on XAI and a Conceptual Model Guiding Interdisciplinary XAI Researchcited by 119
  2. 2022XAI for Transformers: Better Explanations through Conservative Propagationcited by 100
  3. 2024Explainable Artificial Intelligence: A Survey of Needs, Techniques, Applications, and Future Directioncited by 46
  4. 2022Grad-SAM: Explaining Transformers via Gradient Self-Attention Mapscited by 42
  5. 2022ConceptExplainer: Interactive Explanation for Deep Neural Networks from a Concept Perspectivecited by 18

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 6; 2026: 1.

7 papers.