Quantization methods are widely used to accelerate inference and streamline the deployment of large language models (LLMs). Although quantization’s effects on various LLM capabilities have been extensively studied, one critical area remains underexplored: factual knowledge recall (FKR), the process by which LLMs access stored knowledge. To this end, we conduct comprehensive experiments using three common quantization techniques at distinct bit widths, in conjunction with interpretability-driven analyses on two tasks, knowledge memorization and latent multi-hop reasoning. We show that quantization typically results in information loss within LLMs, consequently diminishing their capacity for FKR. This effect is particularly amplified in smaller models within the same architectural families. However, models quantized at reduced bit precision do not consistently exhibit inferior performance and occasionally quantization may even enhance model FKR. We find that BitSandBytes demonstrates highest preservation of the original full-precision model’s FKR. Despite variability across models and methods, quantization causes modest performance degradation and remains an effective compression strategy.

Quantization is widely used to accelerate inference and streamline the deployment of large language models (LLMs), yet its effects on self-explanations (SEs) remain unexplored. SEs, generated by LLMs to justify their own outputs, require reasoning about the model’s own decision-making process, a capability that may exhibit particular sensitivity to quantization. As SEs are increasingly relied upon for transparency in high-stakes applications, understanding whether and to what extent quantization degrades SE quality and faithfulness is critical. To address this gap, we examine two types of SEs: natural language explanations (NLEs) and counterfactual examples, generated by LLMs quantized using three common techniques at distinct bit widths. Our findings indicate that quantization typically leads to moderate declines in both SE quality (up to 4.4%) and faithfulness (up to 2.38%). The user study further demonstrates that quantization diminishes both the coherence and trustworthiness of SEs (up to 8.5%). Compared to smaller models, larger models show limited resilience to quantization in terms of SE quality but better maintain faithfulness. Moreover, no quantization technique consistently excels across task accuracy, SE quality, and faithfulness. Given that quantization’s impact varies by context, we recommend validating SE quality for specific use cases, especially for NLEs, which show greater sensitivity. Nonetheless, the relatively minor deterioration in SE quality and faithfulness does not undermine quantization’s effectiveness as a model compression technique.

Counterfactual examples are minimal edits to an input that alter a model’s prediction. They are widely employed in explainable AI to probe model behavior and in natural language processing (NLP) to augment training data. However, generating valid counterfactuals with large language models (LLMs) remains challenging, as existing single-pass methods often fail to induce reliable label changes, neglecting LLMs’ self-correction capabilities. To explore this untapped potential, we propose iFlip, an iterative refinement approach that leverages three types of feedback, including model confidence, feature attribution, and natural language. Our results show that iFlip achieves an average 57.8% higher validity than the three state-of-the-art baselines, as measured by the label flipping rate. The user study further corroborates that iFlip outperforms baselines in completeness, overall satisfaction, and feasibility. In addition, ablation studies demonstrate that three components are paramount for iFlip to generate valid counterfactuals: leveraging an appropriate number of iterations, pointing to highly attributed words, and early stopping. Finally, counterfactuals generated by iFlip enable effective counterfactual data augmentation, substantially improving model performance and robustness.

Conversational explainable AI (ConvXAI) agents often use GUS-style architectures with separate modules for intent recognition, dialogue management, and template-based response generation. While faithful to the underlying XAI methods, these pipelines are hard to adapt and often struggle with context-dependent follow-up questions. We present SimXAI, a lightweight LLM-centric conversational layer that replaces these modules with a single tool-calling LLM that bridges access to existing XAI resources. Rather than a standalone agent, SimXAI serves as a modular interface that enables conversational access to external XAI resources. We further introduce an evaluation suite for single- and multi-turn parsing, faithfulness, and contextualization. Across existing and new datasets, SimXAI achieves strong function-selection accuracy and high faithfulness while better handling context-dependent requests. In a user study replacing only the conversational layer of TalkToModel, a representative GUS-based agent, users completed tasks more accurately and in fewer turn. Overall, SimXAI improves GUS-based design while preserving faithfulness and improving conversational quality.

Self-generated counterfactual explanations (SCEs) are minimally modified inputs minimality generated by large language models (LLMs) that flip their own predictions validity, offering a causally grounded approach to unraveling black-box LLM behavior. Yet extending them beyond English remains challenging: existing methods struggle to produce valid SCEs in non-dominant languages, and a persistent trade-off between validity and minimality undermines explanation quality. We introduce Macro, a preference alignment framework that applies Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to multilingual SCE generation, using a composite scoring function to construct preference pairs that effectively translate the trade-off into measurable preference signals. Experiments across four LLMs and seven typologically diverse languages show that Macro improves validity by 12.55% on average over the chain-of-thought baseline without degrading minimality, while avoiding the severe minimality violations of the translation-based baseline. Compared to supervised fine-tuning, Macro achieves superior performance on both metrics, confirming that explicit preference optimization is essential for balancing this trade-off. Further analyses reveal that Macro increases cross-lingual perturbation alignment and mitigates common generation errors. Our results highlight preference optimization as a promising direction for enhancing multilingual model explanations.

Mechanistic Interpretability (MI) has emerged as a vital approach to demystify the opaque decision-making of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, existing reviews primarily treat MI as an observational science, summarizing analytical insights while lacking a systematic framework for actionable intervention. To bridge this gap, we present a practical survey structured around the pipeline: “Locate, Steer, and Improve.” We formally categorize Localizing (diagnosis) and Steering (intervention) methods based on specific Interpretable Objects to establish a rigorous intervention protocol. Furthermore, we demonstrate how this framework enables tangible improvements in Alignment, Capability, and Efficiency, effectively operationalizing MI as a practical engineering toolkit for model optimization. The curated paper list of this work is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Act-MI-F068.

As Natural Language Generation (NLG) dominates modern NLP, scalable evaluation remains a critical bottleneck. Consequently, LLM-as-a-judge (LaaJ) adoption has accelerated rapidly, appearing in more papers than human evaluation in 2025. This pivotal shift motivates a critical analysis of current evaluation practices. Overcoming the limits of rigid keyword filtering and manual review, we employ a multi-LLM information extraction pipeline to gather structured metadata from 14,171 papers across four major NLP conferences (2020–2025). Analyzing 3,334 filtered NLG papers, we identify three systemic challenges. (1) Metric inertia: despite the shift toward open-ended generation, legacy lexical metrics (BLEU, ROUGE) persist as primary indicators, typically used alongside rather than replaced by semantic alternatives. (2) Metric-criteria mapping problem: our paper-level co-occurrence data reveals that general-purpose automatic metrics are applied as broad proxies for quality, without specifying which dimension of text generation they are intended to evaluate. (3) Validation gap: LaaJ has grown rapidly without commensurate human validation (fewer than 8% of papers). Crucially, while LaaJ correlates with aggregate quality, alignment collapses on fine-grained criteria like fluency. To address these gaps, we distill our findings into a minimal Evaluation Checklist to guide metric selection, construct validity, and LaaJ deployment.

Evidence grounding makes generated content verifiable by linking statements to their sources. However, effective verifiability requires two properties that existing methods fail to jointly provide: verification granularity, the ability to localize fine-grained evidence for each statement, and verification completeness, the ability to capture both support and contradiction. Existing methods either operate at granularities too coarse for rapid inspection or are support-only. We formalize polarity-aware evidence grounding: linking each response sentence to its contextual evidence with a supporting, contradicting, or irrelevant label. We construct eTracer-Bench, a human-annotated benchmark with 7,905 supporting and contradicting sentence pairs across seven domains, covering both explicit and implicit contradictions. We further propose eTracer, a post-hoc framework whose context-aware signed scorer recovers the full evidence map in a single forward pass per response, with localization and polarity emerging jointly from one mechanism. eTracer achieves the best overall Citation F1 of 82.39, driven by a Contradict F1 of 89.20. A pre-registered within-subjects user study (n = 30) shows that polarity-aware grounding nearly doubles contradiction detection over the document-level baseline (27.9% → 51.9%, Cohen’s d = 0.82, p = 0.0003), and suggests a false-completeness bias under which support-only grounding fails to improve over this baseline (23.4% vs. 27.9%). Dataset and code: https://github.com/chubohao/eTracer.

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.

Counterfactuals refer to minimally edited inputs that cause a model’s prediction to change, serving as a promising approach to explaining the model’s behavior. Large language models (LLMs) excel at generating English counterfactuals and demonstrate multilingual proficiency. However, their effectiveness in generating multilingual counterfactuals remains unclear. To this end, we conduct a comprehensive study on multilingual counterfactuals. We first conduct automatic evaluations on both directly generated counterfactuals in the target languages and those derived via English translation across six languages. Although translation-based counterfactuals offer higher validity than their directly generated counterparts, they demand substantially more modifications and still fall short of matching the quality of the original English counterfactuals. Second, we find the patterns of edits applied to high-resource European-language counterfactuals to be remarkably similar, suggesting that cross-lingual perturbations follow common strategic principles. Third, we reveal that multilingual counterfactual data augmentation (CDA) yields larger model performance improvements than cross-lingual CDA, especially for lower-resource languages. Yet, the imperfections of the generated counterfactuals limit gains in model performance and robustness. Finally, we identify and categorize four main types of errors that consistently appear in the generated counterfactuals across languages.

Counterfactual examples are widely employed to enhance the performance and robustness of large language models (LLMs) through counterfactual data augmentation (CDA). However, the selection of the judge model used to evaluate label flipping, the primary metric for assessing the validity of generated counterfactuals for CDA, yields inconsistent results. To decipher this, we define four types of relationships between the counterfactual generator and judge models: being the same model, belonging to the same model family, being independent models, and having an distillation relationship. Through extensive experiments involving two state-of-the-art LLM-based methods, three datasets, four generator models, and 15 judge models, complemented by a user study (n = 90), we demonstrate that judge models with an independent, non-fine-tuned relationship to the generator model provide the most reliable label flipping evaluations. Relationships between the generator and judge models, which are closely aligned with the user study for CDA, result in better model performance and robustness. Nevertheless, we find that the gap between the most effective judge models and the results obtained from the user study remains considerably large. This suggests that a fully automated pipeline for CDA may be inadequate and requires human intervention.

Conversational explainable artificial intelligence (ConvXAI) systems based on large language models (LLMs) have garnered considerable attention for their ability to enhance user comprehension through dialogue-based explanations. Current ConvXAI systems often are based on intent recognition to accurately identify the user’s desired intention and map it to an explainability method. While such methods offer great precision and reliability in discerning users’ underlying intentions for English, a significant challenge in the scarcity of training data persists, which impedes multilingual generalization. Besides, the support for free-form custom inputs, which are user-defined data distinct from pre-configured dataset instances, remains largely limited. To bridge these gaps, we first introduce MultiCoXQL, a multilingual extension of the CoXQL dataset spanning five typologically diverse languages, including one low-resource language. Subsequently, we propose a new parsing approach aimed at enhancing multilingual parsing performance, and evaluate three LLMs on MultiCoXQL using various parsing strategies. Furthermore, we present Compass, a new multilingual dataset designed for custom input extraction in ConvXAI systems, encompassing 11 intents across the same five languages as MultiCoXQL. We conduct monolingual, cross-lingual, and multilingual evaluations on Compass, employing three LLMs of varying sizes alongside BERT-type models.

Counterfactual examples are widely used in natural language processing (NLP) as valuable data to improve models, and in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to understand model behavior. The automated generation of counterfactual examples remains a challenging task even for large language models (LLMs), despite their impressive performance on many tasks. In this paper, we first introduce ZeroCF, a faithful approach for leveraging important words derived from feature attribution methods to generate counterfactual examples in a zero-shot setting. Second, we present a new framework, FitCF, which further verifies aforementioned counterfactuals by label flip verification and then inserts them as demonstrations for few-shot prompting, outperforming three state-of-the-art baselines. Through ablation studies, we identify the importance of each of FitCF’s core components in improving the quality of counterfactuals, as assessed through flip rate, perplexity, and similarity measures. Furthermore, we show the effectiveness of LIME and Integrated Gradients as backbone attribution methods for FitCF and find that the number of demonstrations has the largest effect on performance. Finally, we reveal a strong correlation between the faithfulness of feature attribution scores and the quality of generated counterfactuals, which we hope will serve as an importantfinding for future research in this direction.

Natural language explanations (NLEs) are vital for elucidating the reasoning behind large language model (LLM) decisions. Many techniques have been developed to generate NLEs using LLMs. However, like humans, LLMs might not always produce optimal NLEs on first attempt. Inspired by human learning processes, we introduce Cross-Refine, which employs role modeling by deploying two LLMs as generator and critic, respectively. The generator outputs a first NLE and then refines this initial explanation using feedback and suggestions provided by the critic. Cross-Refine does not require any supervised training data or additional training. We validate Cross-Refine across three NLP tasks using three state-of-the-art open-source LLMs through automatic and human evaluation. We select Self-Refine (Madaan et al., 2023) as the baseline, which only utilizes self-feedback to refine the explanations. Our findings from automatic evaluation and a user study indicate that Cross-Refine outperforms Self-Refine. Meanwhile, Cross-Refine can perform effectively with less powerful LLMs, whereas Self-Refine only yields strong results with ChatGPT. Additionally, we conduct an ablation study to assess the importance of feedback and suggestions. Both of them play an important role in refining explanations. We further evaluate Cross-Refine on a bilingual dataset in English and German.

Interpretability tools that offer explanations in the form of a dialogue have demonstrated their efficacy in enhancing users’ understanding (Slack et al., 2023; Shen et al., 2023), as one-off explanations may fall short in providing sufficient information to the user. Current solutions for dialogue-based explanations, however, often require external tools and modules and are not easily transferable to tasks they were not designed for. With LLMCheckup, we present an easily accessible tool that allows users to chat with any state-of-the-art large language model (LLM) about its behavior. We enable LLMs to generate explanations and perform user intent recognition without fine-tuning, by connecting them with a broad spectrum of Explainable AI (XAI) methods, including white-box explainability tools such as feature attributions, and self-explanations (e.g., for rationale generation). LLM-based (self-)explanations are presented as an interactive dialogue that supports follow-up questions and generates suggestions. LLMCheckup provides tutorials for operations available in the system, catering to individuals with varying levels of expertise in XAI and supporting multiple input modalities. We introduce a new parsing strategy that substantially enhances the user intent recognition accuracy of the LLM. Finally, we showcase LLMCheckup for the tasks of fact checking and commonsense question answering. Our code repository: https://github.com/DFKI-NLP/LLMCheckup

Conversational explainable artificial intelligence (ConvXAI) systems based on large language models (LLMs) have garnered significant interest from the research community in natural language processing (NLP) and human-computer interaction (HCI). Such systems can provide answers to user questions about explanations in dialogues, have the potential to enhance users’ comprehension and offer more information about the decision-making and generation processes of LLMs. Currently available ConvXAI systems are based on intent recognition rather than free chat, as this has been found to be more precise and reliable in identifying users’ intentions. However, the recognition of intents still presents a challenge in the case of ConvXAI, since little training data exist and the domain is highly specific, as there is a broad range of XAI methods to map requests onto. In order to bridge this gap, we present CoXQL, the first dataset in the NLP domain for user intent recognition in ConvXAI, covering 31 intents, seven of which require filling multiple slots. Subsequently, we enhance an existing parsing approach by incorporating template validations, and conduct an evaluation of several LLMs on CoXQL using different parsing strategies. We conclude that the improved parsing approach (MP+) surpasses the performance of previous approaches. We also discover that intents with multiple slots remain highly challenging for LLMs.

While recently developed NLP explainability methods let us open the black box in various ways (Madsen et al., 2022), a missing ingredient in this endeavor is an interactive tool offering a conversational interface. Such a dialogue system can help users explore datasets and models with explanations in a contextualized manner, e.g. via clarification or follow-up questions, and through a natural language interface. We adapt the conversational explanation framework TalkToModel (Slack et al., 2022) to the NLP domain, add new NLP-specific operations such as free-text rationalization, and illustrate its generalizability on three NLP tasks (dialogue act classification, question answering, hate speech detection). To recognize user queries for explanations, we evaluate fine-tuned and few-shot prompting models and implement a novel adapter-based approach. We then conduct two user studies on (1) the perceived correctness and helpfulness of the dialogues, and (2) the simulatability, i.e. how objectively helpful dialogical explanations are for humans in figuring out the model’s predicted label when it’s not shown. We found rationalization and feature attribution were helpful in explaining the model behavior. Moreover, users could more reliably predict the model outcome based on an explanation dialogue rather than one-off explanations.