Explore/benchmark/Would this change your answer? Evaluating Explanations of LLM Behavior In The Wild with Counterfactual Experiments
W

Adam Karvonen, Euan Ong, Subhash Kantamneni, Samuel Marks/Would this change your answer? Evaluating Explanations of LLM Behavior In The Wild with Counterfactual ExperimentsUnknown

Many areas of AI research, such as language model interpretability and chain of thought faithfulness, seek to explain model behaviors. But what constitutes a "good" explanation? In this work, we evaluate explanations through the lens of counterfactual simulatability-whether the explanation is useful for predicting model behaviors on related counterfactual inputs. To this end, we introduce CHIVE (Counterfactual Hypothesis Investigation Via Edits), a novel agentic pipeline that identifies unexpected model behaviors in the wild and investigates them with counterfactual prompt edits. This yields thousands of high-quality explanations for naturally-occurring model behaviors along with supporting counterfactual evidence. We apply CHIVE in two ways. First, we evaluate whether common LLM interpretability techniques improve an agent's ability to predict counterfactual model behaviors. Surprisingly, we find no uplift from any of the interpretability techniques studied. Second, we use CHIVE to generate training data. We find that training models to predict outcomes of CHIVE-generated counterfactual experiments generalizes to various out-of-distribution settings. Overall, CHIVE automatically discovers explanations of naturally-occurring LLM behaviors, enabling us to evaluate and improve methods for explaining LLM behaviors.

benchmark
GitHubCompare
Refreshed 21h ago
OverviewActivity52wAlternativesDocs
Stars0
Forks0
HF Downloads—30d
Last commit—
Refreshed21h ago
Project healthUnknownNo activity data.
Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.
Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.
AgentHub Score
55 / 100
Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →
Active project
55Score
Growth
40C
Activity
30C
Documentation
70C+
Maturity
45C
Community
42C
Production
58C
GitHub stars · 9 days observed0 not enough history
snapshots
Repository activity · 9 days observedReal snapshots from pushed_at
inactivepushed
2026-08-192026-08-28
Practical assessment
Should you use it?

✓ Best for

  • Research and experimentation
  • Prototype development
  • Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

  • Active community
  • Open source
  • Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

  • Untested at scale without validation
  • Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

  • Review changelog before updating
  • Verify license for commercial use
Technical details
What's inside
Language—
License—
Sourcearxiv
Open source✗ No
Commercial use—
Docs—
Demo—

AgentHub Score

55
Score 55/100
Below average

Alternatives

R
RIFT-Bench: Dynamic Red-teaming For Agentic AI Systems
0 · benchmark
55
A
Automating Parent Selection Configuration in Genetic Programming with Agentic AI
0 · benchmark
55
S
Security Assessment of DeepSeek Harness with A.I.G: Evaluating Resistance to Indirect Prompt Injection
0 · benchmark
55
A
AI Slop and Hallucinations in Vulnerability Assessment: A Survey on Reasoning Failures and Trustworthy Mitigation
0 · benchmark
55Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——
Indexed by AgentHub crawler21h ago
Monitor for new releasesongoing