Explaining Large Language Models Decisions Using Shapley Values
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has opened up exciting possibilities for simulating human behavior and cognitive processes, with potential applications in various domains, including marketing research and consumer behavior analysis. However, the validity of utilizing LLMs as stand-ins for human subjects remains uncertain due to glaring divergences that suggest fundamentally different underlying processes at play and the sensitivity of LLM responses to prompt variations. This paper presents a novel approach based on Shapley values from cooperative game theory to interpret LLM behavior and quantify the relative contribution of each prompt component to the model's output. Through two applications - a discrete choice experiment and an investigation of cognitive biases - we demonstrate how the Shapley value method can uncover what we term "token noise" effects, a phenomenon where LLM decisions are disproportionately influenced by tokens providing minimal informative content. This phenomenon raises concerns about the robustness and generalizability of insights obtained from LLMs in the context of human behavior simulation. Our model-agnostic approach extends its utility to proprietary LLMs, providing a valuable tool for practitioners and researchers to strategically optimize prompts and mitigate apparent cognitive biases. Our findings underscore the need for a more nuanced understanding of the factors driving LLM responses before relying on them as substitutes for human subjects in survey settings. We emphasize the importance of researchers reporting results conditioned on specific prompt templates and exercising caution when drawing parallels between human behavior and LLMs.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Mar 2024.
Builds on
18 of 27 references.
References · 18
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2022Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studiescited by 506
- 2022Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3cited by 389
- 2023Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey designcited by 176
- 2023Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluatorscited by 147
- 2024Systematic Biases in LLM Simulations of Debatescited by 98
- 2022Capturing Failures of Large Language Models via Human Cognitive Biasescited by 97
- 2023Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is: Evaluating Strategic Planning and Execution of LLM Agents in an Auction Arenacited by 78
- 2023The Challenge of Using LLMs to Simulate Human Behavior: A Causal Inference Perspectivecited by 57
- 2023Exploring the Sensitivity of LLMs' Decision-Making Capabilities: Insights from Prompt Variation and Hyperparameterscited by 32
- 2024(Ir)rationality and Cognitive Biases in Large Language Modelscited by 23
6 more
- 2023Challenging the appearance of machine intelligence: Cognitive bias in LLMs and Best Practices for Adoptioncited by 21
- 2024Simulating Human Strategic Behavior: Comparing Single and Multi-agent LLMscited by 20
- 2023Leveraging generative artificial intelligence to simulate student learning behaviorcited by 16
- 2023Cognitive Effects in Large Language Modelscited by 14
- 2023Cognitive bias in large language models: Cautious optimism meets anti-Panglossian meliorismcited by 4
- 2022Modeling Human Behavior Part II -- Cognitive approaches and Uncertaintycited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 6; 2026: 4.
12 papers.
- 2024Creativity Has Left the Chat: The Price of Debiasing Language Modelscited by 29
- 2025Game Theory Meets Large Language Models: A Systematic Survey with Taxonomy and New Frontierscited by 14
- 2025SCAR: Shapley Credit Assignment for More Efficient RLHFcited by 13
- 2024CBEval: A framework for evaluating and interpreting cognitive biases in LLMscited by 12
- 2025LLM-Based Social Simulations Require a Boundarycited by 11
- 2025Interpretation Meets Safety: A Survey on Interpretation Methods and Tools for Improving LLM Safetycited by 10
- 2025Anchors in the Machine: Behavioral and Attributional Evidence of Anchoring Bias in LLMscited by 3
- 2025Measuring What LLMs Think They Do: SHAP Faithfulness and Deployability on Financial Tabular Classificationcited by 3
- 2026Owen-Shapley Policy Optimization: A Principled RL Algorithm for Generative Search LLMscited by 1
- 2026A Regression Framework for Understanding Prompt Component Impact on LLM Performancecited by 1
- 2026More Is Not Always Better: Cross-Component Interference in LLM Agent Scaffoldingcited by 0
- 2026From Scoring to Explanations: Evaluating SHAP and LLM Rationales for Rubric-based Teaching Quality Assessmentcited by 0
- 2026More Is Not Always Better: Cross-Component Interference in LLM Agent Scaffolding7 May 2026
- 2026From Scoring to Explanations: Evaluating SHAP and LLM Rationales for Rubric-based Teaching Quality Assessment18 Apr 2026
- 2026A Regression Framework for Understanding Prompt Component Impact on LLM Performance27 Mar 2026
- 2026Owen-Shapley Policy Optimization: A Principled RL Algorithm for Generative Search LLMs13 Jan 2026
- 2025Measuring What LLMs Think They Do: SHAP Faithfulness and Deployability on Financial Tabular Classification28 Nov 2025
- 2025Anchors in the Machine: Behavioral and Attributional Evidence of Anchoring Bias in LLMs7 Nov 2025
- 2025LLM-Based Social Simulations Require a Boundary24 Jun 2025
- 2025Interpretation Meets Safety: A Survey on Interpretation Methods and Tools for Improving LLM Safety5 Jun 2025
- 2025SCAR: Shapley Credit Assignment for More Efficient RLHF26 May 2025
- 2025Game Theory Meets Large Language Models: A Systematic Survey with Taxonomy and New Frontiers13 Feb 2025
- 2024CBEval: A framework for evaluating and interpreting cognitive biases in LLMs4 Dec 2024
- 2024Creativity Has Left the Chat: The Price of Debiasing Language Models8 Jun 2024