mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Can Global XAI Methods Reveal Injected Behaviours in LLMs? SHAP vs Rule Extraction vs RuleSHAP

arXiv 2505.11189 ↗First posted 16 May 2025cs.AI cs.LGcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) can amplify misinformation, undermining societal goals such as the UN SDGs. We study three documented drivers of misinformation (valence framing, information overload, and oversimplification) often shaped by default beliefs. Building on evidence that LLMs encode such defaults (e.g., "joy is positive", "math is complex") and can act as "bags of heuristics", we ask whether belief-driven heuristics behind misinformation-related behaviour can be recovered from black-box LLM behaviour as explicit rules. A key obstacle is that global rule-extraction methods in explainable AI (XAI) are built for numerical input-output data, not text. We address this by eliciting global LLM beliefs and mapping them to numerical scores via statistically validated abstractions, enabling off-the-shelf global XAI to detect belief-driven heuristics. For ground truth, we inject nonlinear behavioural triggers of increasing complexity (univariate, conjunctive, non-convex) into GPT-family and Llama models via system instructions. We find that RuleFit often misses non-univariate triggers, while global SHAP better ranks conjunctive trigger features but yields no symbolic rules. To bridge this gap, we propose RuleSHAP, a rule-extraction algorithm that couples global SHAP aggregates with rule induction to better capture non-univariate triggers, improving MRR@1 over RuleFit by +82% on average. Our results suggest a practical pathway for surfacing behavioural triggers in LLMs.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 May 2025.

Builds on

23 of 51 references.

References · 23

  1. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
  2. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  3. 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,166
  4. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  5. 2023When Do Neural Nets Outperform Boosted Trees on Tabular Data?cited by 223
  6. 2023Evaluating the Moral Beliefs Encoded in LLMscited by 215
  7. 2024Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judgescited by 205
  8. 2024Transcoders Find Interpretable LLM Feature Circuitscited by 200
  9. 2023Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluatorscited by 150
  10. 2019The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goalscited by 100
  11. 2024Arithmetic Without Algorithms: Language Models Solve Math With a Bag of Heuristicscited by 97
  12. 2022Impossibility Theorems for Feature Attributioncited by 78
11 more
  1. 2021GLocalX -- From Local to Global Explanations of Black Box AI Modelscited by 48
  2. 2024TokenSHAP: Interpreting Large Language Models with Monte Carlo Shapley Value Estimationcited by 42
  3. 2024Addressing cognitive bias in medical language modelscited by 36
  4. 2024Decoding Biases: Automated Methods and LLM Judges for Gender Bias Detection in Language Modelscited by 33
  5. 2021Rational Shapley Valuescited by 18
  6. 2022Fast Interpretable Greedy-Tree Sumscited by 13
  7. 2024A semantic embedding space based on large language models for modelling human beliefscited by 9
  8. 2025Concept-Level Explainability for Auditing & Steering LLM Responsescited by 6
  9. 2017Misinformation spreading on Facebookcited by 4
  10. 2019The power of moral words: Loaded language generates framing effects in the extreme dictator gamecited by 4
  11. 2024ShapG: new feature importance method based on the Shapley valuecited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.