While Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques have been widely studied to explain predictions made by deep neural networks, the way to evaluate the faithfulness of explanation results remains challenging, due to the heterogeneity of explanations for various models and the lack of ground-truth explanations. This paper introduces an XAI benchmark named $\mathcal{M}^4$, which allows evaluating various input feature attribution methods using the same set of faithfulness metrics across multiple data modalities (images and texts) and network structures (ResNets, MobileNets, Transformers). A taxonomy for the metrics has been proposed as well. We first categorize commonly used XAI evaluation metrics into three groups based on the ground truth they require. We then implement classic and state-of-the-art feature attribution methods using InterpretDL and conduct extensive experiments to compare methods and gain insights. Extensive experiments have been conducted to provide holistic evaluations as benchmark baselines. Several interesting observations are noticed for designing attribution algorithms.

We present a methodology for improving the accuracy of faithfulness evaluation in Large Language Models (LLMs). The proposed methodology is based on the combination of elementary faithfulness metrics into a combined (fused) metric, for the purpose of improving the faithfulness of LLM outputs. The proposed strategy for metric fusion deploys a tree-based model to identify the importance of each metric, which is driven by the integration of human judgements evaluating the faithfulness of LLM responses. This fused metric is demonstrated to correlate more strongly with human judgements across all tested domains for faithfulness. Improving the ability to evaluate the faithfulness of LLMs, allows for greater confidence to be placed within models, allowing for their implementation in a greater diversity of scenarios. Additionally, we homogenise a collection of datasets across question answering and dialogue-based domains and implement human judgements and LLM responses within this dataset, allowing for the reproduction and trialling of faithfulness evaluation across domains.

Transformers have profoundly influenced AI research, but explaining their decisions remains challenging -- even for relatively simpler tasks such as classification -- which hinders trust and safe deployment in real-world applications. Although activation-based attribution methods effectively explain transformer-based text classification models, our findings reveal that these methods can be undermined by class-irrelevant features within activations, leading to less reliable interpretations. To address this limitation, we propose Contrast-CAT, a novel activation contrast-based attribution method that refines token-level attributions by filtering out class-irrelevant features. By contrasting the activations of an input sequence with reference activations, Contrast-CAT generates clearer and more faithful attribution maps. Experimental results across various datasets and models confirm that Contrast-CAT consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Notably, under the MoRF setting, it achieves average improvements of x1.30 in AOPC and x2.25 in LOdds over the most competing methods, demonstrating its effectiveness in enhancing interpretability for transformer-based text classification.

This review examines the means with which faithfulness has been evaluated across open-ended summarization, question-answering and machine translation tasks. We find that the use of LLMs as a faithfulness evaluator is commonly the metric that is most highly correlated with human judgement. The means with which other studies have mitigated hallucinations is discussed, with both retrieval augmented generation (RAG) and prompting framework approaches having been linked with superior faithfulness, whilst other recommendations for mitigation are provided. Research into faithfulness is integral to the continued widespread use of LLMs, as unfaithful responses can pose major risks to many areas whereby LLMs would otherwise be suitable. Furthermore, evaluating open-ended generation provides a more comprehensive measure of LLM performance than commonly used multiple-choice benchmarking, which can help in advancing the trust that can be placed within LLMs.

As machine learning becomes more widespread and is used in more critical applications, it's important to provide explanations for these models, to prevent unintended behavior. Unfortunately, many current interpretability methods struggle with faithfulness. Therefore, this Ph.D. thesis investigates the question "How to provide and ensure faithful explanations for complex general-purpose neural NLP models?" The main thesis is that we should develop new paradigms in interpretability. This is achieved by first developing solid faithfulness metrics and then applying the lessons learned from this investigation to develop new paradigms. The two new paradigms explored are faithfulness measurable models (FMMs) and self-explanations. The idea in self-explanations is to have large language models explain themselves, we identify that current models are not capable of doing this consistently. However, we suggest how this could be achieved. The idea of FMMs is to create models that are designed such that measuring faithfulness is cheap and precise. This makes it possible to optimize an explanation towards maximum faithfulness, which makes FMMs designed to be explained. We find that FMMs yield explanations that are near theoretical optimal in terms of faithfulness. Overall, from all investigations of faithfulness, results show that post-hoc and intrinsic explanations are by default model and task-dependent. However, this was not the case when using FMMs, even with the same post-hoc explanation methods. This shows, that even simple modifications to the model, such as randomly masking the training dataset, as was done in FMMs, can drastically change the situation and result in consistently faithful explanations. This answers the question of how to provide and ensure faithful explanations.

Hallucination has been a popular topic in natural language generation (NLG). In real-world applications, unfaithful content can result in bad data quality or loss of trust from end users. Thus, it is crucial to fact-check before adopting NLG for production usage, which can be expensive if done manually. In this paper, we investigate automated faithfulness evaluation in guided NLG. We developed a rubrics template and use large language models (LLMs) to score the generation into quantifiable scales. We compared popular LLMs as well as the widely adopted natural language inference (NLI) models in scoring quality and sensitivity. In addition, we developed methods to generation synthetic unfaithful data, as well as a heuristics to quantify the percentage of hallucination. Our results on 4 travel-domain industry dataset show that GPT-4 can provide accurate judgement and explanation on whether a source and a generation are factually consistent. Furthermore, we found that tuning NLI models on synthetic data can improve performance. Lastly, we present insights on latency and cost for deploying such system.

While Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques have been widely studied to explain predictions made by deep neural networks, the way to evaluate the faithfulness of explanation results remains challenging, due to the heterogeneity of explanations for various models and the lack of ground-truth explanations. This paper introduces an XAI benchmark named \mathcal{M} 4, which allows evaluating various input feature attribution methods using the same set of faithfulness metrics across multiple data modalities (images and texts) and network structures (ResNets, MobileNets, Transformers). A taxonomy for the metrics has been proposed as well. We first categorize commonly used XAI evaluation metrics into three groups based on the ground truth they require. We then implement classic and state-of-the-art feature attribution methods using InterpretDL and conduct extensive experiments to compare methods and gain insights.

Existing benchmarks for summarization quality evaluation often lack diverse input scenarios, focus on narrowly defined dimensions (e.g., faithfulness), and struggle with subjective and coarse-grained annotation schemes. To address these shortcomings, we create UniSumEval benchmark, which extends the range of input context (e.g., domain, length) and provides fine-grained, multi-dimensional annotations. We use AI assistance in data creation, identifying potentially hallucinogenic input texts, and also helping human annotators reduce the difficulty of fine-grained annotation tasks. With UniSumEval, we benchmark nine latest language models as summarizers, offering insights into their performance across varying input contexts and evaluation dimensions. Furthermore, we conduct a thorough comparison of SOTA automated summary evaluators. Our benchmark data will be available at https://github.com/DISL-Lab/UniSumEval-v1.0.