# Context Dependence and Reliability in Autoregressive Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.01378 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.01378/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 16 of its 20 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Feb 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.05250/) (2016)
- [On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07258/) (2021)
- [Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.01365/) (2017)
- [Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Maps](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1312.6034/) (2013)
- [Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02483/) (2023)
- [Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.08608/) (2017)
- [Attention is not Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.10186/) (2019)
- [Attention is not not Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.04626/) (2019)
- [Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.03685/) (2020)
- [Is Attention Interpretable?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.03731/) (2019)
- [The (Un)reliability of saliency methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1711.00867/) (2017)
- [Understanding Neural Networks through Representation Erasure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.08220/) (2016)
- [Pathologies of Neural Models Make Interpretations Difficult](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.07781/) (2018)

## 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.