Response Uncertainty and Probe Modeling: Two Sides of the Same Coin in LLM Interpretability?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.18575v1
• Date: Sat, 24 May 2025 07:37:12 GMT
• Title: Response Uncertainty and Probe Modeling: Two Sides of the Same Coin in LLM Interpretability?
• Abstract summary: This study hypothesizes that probe performance on such datasets reflects characteristics of both the LLM's generated responses and its internal feature space.<n>We find a strong correlation: improved probe performance consistently corresponds to a reduction in response uncertainty.<n>Our findings indicate that high LLM response variance is associated with a larger set of important features, which poses a greater challenge for probe models.
• Score: 21.836115121491495
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Probing techniques have shown promise in revealing how LLMs encode human-interpretable concepts, particularly when applied to curated datasets. However, the factors governing a dataset's suitability for effective probe training are not well-understood. This study hypothesizes that probe performance on such datasets reflects characteristics of both the LLM's generated responses and its internal feature space. Through quantitative analysis of probe performance and LLM response uncertainty across a series of tasks, we find a strong correlation: improved probe performance consistently corresponds to a reduction in response uncertainty, and vice versa. Subsequently, we delve deeper into this correlation through the lens of feature importance analysis. Our findings indicate that high LLM response variance is associated with a larger set of important features, which poses a greater challenge for probe models and often results in diminished performance. Moreover, leveraging the insights from response uncertainty analysis, we are able to identify concrete examples where LLM representations align with human knowledge across diverse domains, offering additional evidence of interpretable reasoning in LLMs.

Related papers

• Leveraging Interview-Informed LLMs to Model Survey Responses: Comparative Insights from AI-Generated and Human Data [4.774576759157642]
  Mixed methods research integrates quantitative and qualitative data but faces challenges in aligning their distinct structures.<n>This study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably predict human survey responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T05:57:26Z)
• Hallucination Detection in LLMs with Topological Divergence on Attention Graphs [64.74977204942199]
  Hallucination, i.e., generating factually incorrect content, remains a critical challenge for large language models.<n>We introduce TOHA, a TOpology-based HAllucination detector in the RAG setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T10:06:27Z)
• Mitigating Forgetting in LLM Fine-Tuning via Low-Perplexity Token Learning [61.99353167168545]
  We show that fine-tuning with LLM-generated data improves target task performance and reduces non-target task degradation.<n>This is the first work to provide an empirical explanation based on token perplexity reduction to mitigate catastrophic forgetting in LLMs after fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T08:18:56Z)
• Detecting LLM Hallucination Through Layer-wise Information Deficiency: Analysis of Ambiguous Prompts and Unanswerable Questions [60.31496362993982]
  Large language models (LLMs) frequently generate confident yet inaccurate responses.<n>We present a novel, test-time approach to detecting model hallucination through systematic analysis of information flow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-13T16:14:49Z)
• Reinforcement Learning for Aligning Large Language Models Agents with Interactive Environments: Quantifying and Mitigating Prompt Overfitting [40.78026627009521]
  Reinforcement learning (RL) is a promising approach for aligning large language models (LLMs) knowledge with sequential decision-making tasks. We propose a novel framework to analyze the sensitivity of LLMs to prompt formulations following RL training in a textual environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T18:25:35Z)
• Understanding Ranking LLMs: A Mechanistic Analysis for Information Retrieval [20.353393773305672]
  We employ a probing-based analysis to examine neuron activations in ranking LLMs.<n>Our study spans a broad range of feature categories, including lexical signals, document structure, query-document interactions, and complex semantic representations.<n>Our findings offer crucial insights for developing more transparent and reliable retrieval systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T08:20:10Z)
• The LLM Effect: Are Humans Truly Using LLMs, or Are They Being Influenced By Them Instead? [60.01746782465275]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown capabilities close to human performance in various analytical tasks. This paper investigates the efficiency and accuracy of LLMs in specialized tasks through a structured user study focusing on Human-LLM partnership.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T02:30:18Z)
• The Good, The Bad, and The Greedy: Evaluation of LLMs Should Not Ignore Non-Determinism [39.392450788666814]
  Current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) often overlook non-determinism. greedy decoding generally outperforms sampling methods for most evaluated tasks. Smaller LLMs can match or surpass larger models such as GPT-4-Turbo.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T06:12:17Z)
• Explaining Large Language Models Decisions Using Shapley Values [1.223779595809275]
  Large language models (LLMs) have opened up exciting possibilities for simulating human behavior and cognitive processes. However, the validity of utilizing LLMs as stand-ins for human subjects remains uncertain. This paper presents a novel approach based on Shapley values to interpret LLM behavior and quantify the relative contribution of each prompt component to the model's output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T22:49:43Z)
• Comprehensive Reassessment of Large-Scale Evaluation Outcomes in LLMs: A Multifaceted Statistical Approach [64.42462708687921]
  Evaluations have revealed that factors such as scaling, training types, architectures and other factors profoundly impact the performance of LLMs. Our study embarks on a thorough re-examination of these LLMs, targeting the inadequacies in current evaluation methods. This includes the application of ANOVA, Tukey HSD tests, GAMM, and clustering technique.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-22T14:47:35Z)
• What Makes Quantization for Large Language Models Hard? An Empirical Study from the Lens of Perturbation [55.153595212571375]
  Quantization is a technique for improving the memory and computational efficiency of large language models (LLMs) We propose a new perspective on quantization, viewing it as perturbations added to the weights and activations of LLMs. We conduct experiments with various artificial perturbations to explore their impact on LLM performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T03:42:51Z)
• Characterizing Truthfulness in Large Language Model Generations with Local Intrinsic Dimension [63.330262740414646]
  We study how to characterize and predict the truthfulness of texts generated from large language models (LLMs) We suggest investigating internal activations and quantifying LLM's truthfulness using the local intrinsic dimension (LID) of model activations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T04:56:21Z)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.