Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Zahra Dehghanighobadi

dblp:400/6336 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
counterfactual explanation
0.912025
Can LLMs Explain Themselves Counterfactually? · EMNLP 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.912025
Can LLMs Explain Themselves Counterfactually? · EMNLP 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › natural language explanation
self-explanation
0.912025
Can LLMs Explain Themselves Counterfactually? · EMNLP 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

prompting · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Can LLMs Explain Themselves Counterfactually?
abstract
Explanations are an important tool for gaining insights into model behavior, calibrating user trust, and ensuring compliance.The past few years have seen a flurry of methods for generating explanations, many of which involve computing model gradients or solving specially designed optimization problems.Owing to the remarkable reasoning abilities of LLMs, selfexplanation, i.e., prompting the model to explain its outputs, has recently emerged as a new paradigm.We study a specific type of self-explanation, self-generated counterfactual explanations (SCEs).We test LLMs' ability to generate SCEs across families, sizes, temperatures, and datasets.We find that LLMs sometimes struggle to generate SCEs.When they do, their prediction often does not agree with their own counterfactual reasoning. github.com/aisoc-lab/llm-sces
Zahra Dehghanighobadi, Asja Fischer, Muhammad Bilal Zafar
EMNLP1