mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Prompt-Counterfactual Explanations for Generative AI System Behavior

arXiv 2601.03156 ↗First posted 6 Jan 2026cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

As generative AI systems become integrated into real-world applications, organizations increasingly need to be able to understand and interpret their behavior. In particular, decision-makers need to understand what causes generative AI systems to exhibit specific output characteristics. Within this general topic, this paper examines a key question: what is it about the input -- the prompt -- that causes an LLM-based generative AI system to produce output that exhibits specific characteristics, such as toxicity, negative sentiment, or political bias. To examine this question, we adapt a common technique from the Explainable AI literature: counterfactual explanations. We explain why traditional counterfactual explanations cannot be applied directly to generative AI systems, due to several differences in how generative AI systems function. We then propose a flexible framework that adapts counterfactual explanations to non-deterministic, generative AI systems in scenarios where downstream classifiers can reveal key characteristics of their outputs. Based on this framework, we introduce an algorithm for generating prompt-counterfactual explanations (PCEs). Finally, we demonstrate the production of counterfactual explanations for generative AI systems with three case studies, examining different output characteristics (viz., political leaning, toxicity, and sentiment). The case studies further show that PCEs can streamline prompt engineering to suppress undesirable output characteristics and can enhance red-teaming efforts to uncover additional prompts that elicit undesirable outputs. Ultimately, this work lays a foundation for prompt-focused interpretability in generative AI: a capability that will become indispensable as these models are entrusted with higher-stakes tasks and subject to emerging regulatory requirements for transparency and accountability.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 6 Jan 2026.

Builds on

0 of 0 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Would this change your answer? Evaluating Explanations of LLM Behavior In The Wild with Counterfactual Experiments
  2. 2025LeapFactual: Reliable Visual Counterfactual Explanation Using Conditional Flow Matching
  3. 2025LLMs Don't Know Their Own Decision Boundaries: The Unreliability of Self-Generated Counterfactual Explanations
  4. 2023Do Models Explain Themselves? Counterfactual Simulatability of Natural Language Explanations
  5. 2024A Mechanism-Based Approach to Mitigating Harms from Persuasive Generative AI
  6. 2025Can LLMs Explain Themselves Counterfactually?
  7. 2023T-COL: Generating Counterfactual Explanations for General User Preferences on Variable Machine Learning Systems
  8. 2026Do LLM Self-Explanations Help Users Predict Model Behavior? Evaluating Counterfactual Simulatability with Pragmatic Perturbations