The increasing size and complexity of modern ML systems has improved their predictive capabilities but made their behavior harder to explain. Many techniques for model explanation have been developed in response, but we lack clear criteria for assessing these techniques. In this paper, we cast model explanation as the causal inference problem of estimating causal effects of real-world concepts on the output behavior of ML models given actual input data. We introduce CEBaB, a new benchmark dataset for assessing concept-based explanation methods in Natural Language Processing (NLP). CEBaB consists of short restaurant reviews with human-generated counterfactual reviews in which an aspect (food, noise, ambiance, service) of the dining experience was modified. Original and counterfactual reviews are annotated with multiply-validated sentiment ratings at the aspect-level and review-level. The rich structure of CEBaB allows us to go beyond input features to study the effects of abstract, real-world concepts on model behavior. We use CEBaB to compare the quality of a range of concept-based explanation methods covering different assumptions and conceptions of the problem, and we seek to establish natural metrics for comparative assessments of these methods.

Data do not materialize out of thin air. Rather, data are generated from real-world processes with complex causal structures we do not observe directly. G nor can we observe both interventions for the same subject. For example, in the context of CEBaB, we might ask 1. Each of the above questions requires the estimation of a different theoretical quantity.

Explaining model behavior has emerged as a central goal within ML.

The increasing size and complexity of modern ML systems has improved their predictive capabilities but made their behavior harder to explain. Many techniques for model explanation have been developed in response, but we lack clear criteria for assessing these techniques. In this paper, we cast model explanation as the causal inference problem of estimating causal effects of real-world concepts on the output behavior of ML models given actual input data. We introduce CEBaB, a new benchmark dataset for assessing concept-based explanation methods in Natural Language Processing (NLP). CEBaB consists of short restaurant reviews with human-generated counterfactual reviews in which an aspect (food, noise, ambiance, service) of the dining experience was modified.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed transformative advances across a spectrum of natural language processing tasks through few-shot or zero-shot prompting, bypassing the need for parameter tuning. While convenient, this modus operandi aggravates ``hallucination'' concerns, particularly given the enigmatic ``black-box'' nature behind their gigantic model sizes. Such concerns are exacerbated in high-stakes applications (e.g., healthcare), where unaccountable decision errors can lead to devastating consequences. In contrast, human decision-making relies on nuanced cognitive processes, such as the ability to sense and adaptively correct misjudgments through conceptual understanding. Drawing inspiration from human cognition, we propose an innovative \textit{metacognitive} approach, dubbed \textbf{CLEAR}, to equip LLMs with capabilities for self-aware error identification and correction. Our framework facilitates the construction of concept-specific sparse subnetworks that illuminate transparent decision pathways. This provides a novel interface for model \textit{intervention} after deployment. Our intervention offers compelling advantages: (\textit{i})~at deployment or inference time, our metacognitive LLMs can self-consciously identify potential mispredictions with minimum human involvement, (\textit{ii})~the model has the capability to self-correct its errors efficiently, obviating the need for additional tuning, and (\textit{iii})~the rectification procedure is not only self-explanatory but also user-friendly, enhancing the interpretability and accessibility of the model. By integrating these metacognitive features, our approach pioneers a new path toward engendering greater trustworthiness and accountability in the deployment of LLMs.

The increasing size and complexity of modern ML systems has improved their predictive capabilities but made their behavior harder to explain. Many techniques for model explanation have been developed in response, but we lack clear criteria for assessing these techniques. In this paper, we cast model explanation as the causal inference problem of estimating causal effects of real-world concepts on the output behavior of ML models given actual input data. We introduce CEBaB, a new benchmark dataset for assessing concept-based explanation methods in Natural Language Processing (NLP). CEBaB consists of short restaurant reviews with human-generated counterfactual reviews in which an aspect (food, noise, ambiance, service) of the dining experience was modified. Original and counterfactual reviews are annotated with multiply-validated sentiment ratings at the aspect-level and review-level. The rich structure of CEBaB allows us to go beyond input features to study the effects of abstract, real-world concepts on model behavior. We use CEBaB to compare the quality of a range of concept-based explanation methods covering different assumptions and conceptions of the problem, and we seek to establish natural metrics for comparative assessments of these methods.

Explainability methods for NLP systems encounter a version of the fundamental problem of causal inference: for a given ground-truth input text, we never truly observe the counterfactual texts necessary for isolating the causal effects of model representations on outputs. In response, many explainability methods make no use of counterfactual texts, assuming they will be unavailable. In this paper, we show that robust causal explainability methods can be created using approximate counterfactuals, which can be written by humans to approximate a specific counterfactual or simply sampled using metadata-guided heuristics. The core of our proposal is the Causal Proxy Model (CPM). A CPM explains a black-box model $\mathcal{N}$ because it is trained to have the same actual input/output behavior as $\mathcal{N}$ while creating neural representations that can be intervened upon to simulate the counterfactual input/output behavior of $\mathcal{N}$. Furthermore, we show that the best CPM for $\mathcal{N}$ performs comparably to $\mathcal{N}$ in making factual predictions, which means that the CPM can simply replace $\mathcal{N}$, leading to more explainable deployed models. Our code is available at https://github.com/frankaging/Causal-Proxy-Model.