A Definition of Good Explanations and the Challenges Explaining LLM Outputs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
How to define a good explanation is a long-standing philosophical debate which has found recent renewed interest in the context of AI outputs. Explainability is crucial for AI adoption in many contexts, but in order to produce good explanations of AI systems, we must first have an understanding of what good explanations are. In this paper we propose a definition inspired by the notion of counterfactual explanations, however we argue that one must also take into account the interlocutor's prior beliefs in each fact that could be offered in an explanation. We explore the ramifications of this definition for AI explainability and, in particular, why LLM outputs are difficult to produce good explanations for.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Jun 2026.
Builds on
9 of 25 references.
References · 9
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
- 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,416
- 2017Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciencescited by 1,206
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,089
- 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 817
- 2026Brittlebench: Quantifying LLM robustness via prompt sensitivitycited by 21
Built on by
Not cited yet.