Simulatability is an evaluation protocol for explanations that quantifies their usefulness by how well they help a user predict a task model’s outputs. Since human evaluation is costly, automated simulatability replaces human explainees with LLM simulators, as proposed in ConSim (Poché et al., 2025) for large-scale experiments. We qualitatively replicate and extend ConSim’s ranking of explanation methods across the tested datasets, explanation families, and simulator LLMs, and identify two limitations. First, when class names are meaningful, simulators can obtain high simulatability by solving the classification task directly, without relying on the explanations. Second, class anonymization can reward explanations for leaking the hidden label mapping, a limitation we expose with a new classes-as-concepts baseline. These results are consistent with a shortcut hypothesis: in the tested settings, simulator predictions mainly rely on task priors, while explanations produce small changes. We derive recommendations for more robust automated simulatability evaluations.

Interpreto is an open-source Python library for interpreting HuggingFace language models, from early BERT variants to LLMs. It provides two complementary families of methods: attribution methods and concept-based explanations. The library bridges recent research and practical tooling by exposing explanation workflows through a unified API for both classification and text generation. A key differentiator is its end-to-end concept-based pipeline (from activation extraction to concept learning, interpretation, and scoring), which goes beyond feature-level attributions and is uncommon in existing libraries.

Concept-based explanations work by mapping complex model computations to human-understandable concepts. Evaluating such explanations is very difficult, as it includes not only the quality of the induced space of possible concepts but also how effectively the chosen concepts are communicated to users. Existing evaluation metrics often focus solely on the former, neglecting the latter.We introduce an evaluation framework for measuring concept explanations via automated simulatability: a simulator’s ability to predict the explained model’s outputs based on the provided explanations. This approach accounts for both the concept space and its interpretation in an end-to-end evaluation. Human studies for simulatability are notoriously difficult to enact, particularly at the scale of a wide, comprehensive empirical evaluation (which is the subject of this work). We propose using large language models (LLMs) as simulators to approximate the evaluation and report various analyses to make such approximations reliable. Our method allows for scalable and consistent evaluation across various models and datasets. We report a comprehensive empirical evaluation using this framework and show that LLMs provide consistent rankings of explanation methods. Code available at Anonymous GitHub.