Applied Explainability for Large Language Models: A Comparative Study
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance across many natural language processing tasks, yet their decision processes remain difficult to interpret. This lack of transparency creates challenges for trust, debugging, and deployment in real-world systems. This paper presents an applied comparative study of three explainability techniques: Integrated Gradients, Attention Rollout, and SHAP, on a fine-tuned DistilBERT model for SST-2 sentiment classification. Rather than proposing new methods, the focus is on evaluating the practical behavior of existing approaches under a consistent and reproducible setup. The results show that gradient-based attribution provides more stable and intuitive explanations, while attention-based methods are computationally efficient but less aligned with prediction-relevant features. Model-agnostic approaches offer flexibility but introduce higher computational cost and variability. This work highlights key trade-offs between explainability methods and emphasizes their role as diagnostic tools rather than definitive explanations. The findings provide practical insights for researchers and engineers working with transformer-based NLP systems. This is a preprint and has not undergone peer review.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 2026.
Builds on
12 of 15 references.
References · 12
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2019DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lightercited by 4,307
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
- 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,416
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,080
- 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 929
- 2020Quantifying Attention Flow in Transformerscited by 775
- 2016The Mythos of Model Interpretabilitycited by 721
- 2020Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient Descentcited by 580
Built on by
Not cited yet.