mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Context Dependence and Reliability in Autoregressive Language Models

arXiv 2602.01378 ↗First posted 1 Feb 2026cs.CL cs.AI stat.MLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) generate outputs by utilizing extensive context, which often includes redundant information from prompts, retrieved passages, and interaction history. In critical applications, it is vital to identify which context elements actually influence the output, as standard explanation methods struggle with redundancy and overlapping context. Minor changes in input can lead to unpredictable shifts in attribution scores, undermining interpretability and raising concerns about risks like prompt injection. This work addresses the challenge of distinguishing essential context elements from correlated ones. We introduce RISE (Redundancy-Insensitive Scoring of Explanation), a method that quantifies the unique influence of each input relative to others, minimizing the impact of redundancies and providing clearer, stable attributions. Experiments demonstrate that RISE offers more robust explanations than traditional methods, emphasizing the importance of conditional information for trustworthy LLM explanations and monitoring.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Feb 2026.

Builds on

16 of 20 references.

References · 16

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  3. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
  4. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
  5. 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 3,961
  6. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  7. 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
  8. 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,565
  9. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  10. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 916
  11. 2019Attention is not not Explanationcited by 629
  12. 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
4 more
  1. 2019Is Attention Interpretable?cited by 387
  2. 2017The (Un)reliability of saliency methodscited by 331
  3. 2016Understanding Neural Networks through Representation Erasurecited by 223
  4. 2018Pathologies of Neural Models Make Interpretations Difficultcited by 140

Built on by

Not cited yet.