PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Explaining black box text modules in natural language with language models

Chandan Singh, Aliyah R. Hsu, Richard Antonello, Shailee Jain, Alexander Huth, Bin Yu, Jianfeng Gao

neuro & cogsciinterpretabilitylanguage modelsexplanationsmechanistic interpretability
29.40100
Fused
band ≈ ±13 pct pts (from σ = 0.26)
36.10100
Mimo
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.37)
28.80100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.37)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — Large language models can help generate and evaluate explanations of text modules

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable prediction performance for a growing array of tasks. However, their rapid proliferation and increasing opaqueness have created a growing need for interpretability. Here, we ask whether we can automatically obtain natural language explanations for black box text modules. A text module is any function that maps text to a scalar continuous value, such as a submodule within an LLM or a fitted model of a brain region. Black box indicates that we only have access to the module's inputs/outputs. We introduce Summarize and Score (SASC), a method that takes in a text module and returns a natural language explanation of the module's selectivity along with a score for how reliable the explanation is. We study SASC in 3 contexts. First, we evaluate SASC on synthetic modules and find that it often recovers ground truth explanations. Second, we use SASC to explain modules found within a pre-trained BERT model, enabling inspection of the model's internals. Finally, we show that SASC can generate explanations for the response of individual fMRI voxels to language stimuli, with potential applications to fine-grained brain mapping.

Author context

Most prolific author: 13 submissions (credibility 0.86).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Battle history — 42 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 41% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 42)