Select or Project? Evaluating Lower-dimensional Vectors for LLM Training Data Explanations

Gradient-based methods for instance-based explanation for large language models (LLMs) are hindered by the immense dimensionality of model gradients. In practice, influence estimation is restricted to a subset of model parameters to make computation tractable, but this subset is often chosen ad hoc and rarely justified by systematic evaluation. This paper investigates if it is better to create low-dimensional representations by selecting a small, architecturally informed subset of model components or by projecting the full gradients into a lower-dimensional space. Using a novel benchmark, we show that a greedily selected subset of components captures the information about training data influence needed for a retrieval task more effectively than either the full gradient or random projection. We further find that this approach is more computationally efficient than random projection, demonstrating that targeted component selection is a practical strategy for making instance-based explanations of large models more computationally feasible.

Influential Training Data Retrieval for Explaining Verbalized Confidence of LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) can increase users' perceived trust by verbalizing confidence in their outputs. However, prior work has shown that LLMs are often overconfident, making their stated confidence unreliable since it does not consistently align with factual accuracy. To better understand the sources of this verbalized confidence, we introduce TracVC (\textbf{Trac}ing \textbf{V}erbalized \textbf{C}onfidence), a method that builds on information retrieval and influence estimation to trace generated confidence expressions back to the training data. We evaluate TracVC on OLMo and Llama models in a question answering setting, proposing a new metric, content groundness, which measures the extent to which an LLM grounds its confidence in content-related training examples (relevant to the question and answer) versus in generic examples of confidence verbalization. Our analysis reveals that OLMo2-13B is frequently influenced by confidence-related data that is lexically unrelated to the query, suggesting that it may mimic superficial linguistic expressions of certainty rather than rely on genuine content grounding. These findings point to a fundamental limitation in current training regimes: LLMs may learn how to sound confident without learning when confidence is justified. Our analysis provides a foundation for improving LLMs' trustworthiness in expressing more reliable confidence.

Calibration Is Not Enough: Evaluating Confidence Estimation Under Language Variations

Confidence estimation (CE) indicates how reliable the answers of large language models (LLMs) are, and can impact user trust and decision-making. Existing work evaluates CE methods almost exclusively through calibration, examining whether stated confidence aligns with accuracy, or discrimination, whether confidence is ranked higher for correct predictions than incorrect ones. However, these facets ignore pitfalls of CE in the context of LLMs and language variation: confidence estimates should remain consistent under semantically equivalent prompt or answer variations, and should change when the answer meaning differs. Therefore, we present a comprehensive evaluation framework for CE that measures their confidence quality on three new aspects: robustness of confidence against prompt perturbations, stability across semantic equivalent answers, and sensitivity to semantically different answers. In our work, we demonstrate that common CE methods for LLMs often fail on these metrics: methods that achieve good performance on calibration or discrimination are not robust to prompt variations or are not sensitive to answer changes. Overall, our framework reveals limitations of existing CE evaluations relevant for real-world LLM use cases and provides practical guidance for selecting and designing more reliable CE methods.

Explaining Generalization of AI-Generated Text Detectors Through Linguistic Analysis

AI-text detectors achieve high accuracy on in-domain benchmarks, but often struggle to generalize across different generation conditions such as unseen prompts, model families, or domains. While prior work has reported these generalization gaps, there are limited insights about the underlying causes. In this work, we present a systematic study aimed at explaining generalization behavior through linguistic analysis. We construct a comprehensive benchmark that spans 6 prompting strategies, 7 large language models (LLMs), and 4 domain datasets, resulting in a diverse set of human- and AI-generated texts. Using this dataset, we fine-tune classification-based detectors on various generation settings and evaluate their cross-prompt, cross-model, and cross-dataset generalization. To explain the performance variance, we compute correlations between generalization accuracies and feature shifts of 80 linguistic features between training and test conditions. Our analysis reveals that generalization performance for specific detectors and evaluation conditions is significantly associated with linguistic features such as tense usage and pronoun frequency.

Do LLM Self-Explanations Help Users Predict Model Behavior? Evaluating Counterfactual Simulatability with Pragmatic Perturbations

Large Language Models (LLMs) can produce verbalized self-explanations, yet prior studies suggest that such rationales may not reliably reflect the model's true decision process. We ask whether these explanations nevertheless help users predict model behavior, operationalized as counterfactual simulatability. Using StrategyQA, we evaluate how well humans and LLM judges can predict a model's answers to counterfactual follow-up questions, with and without access to the model's chain-of-thought or post-hoc explanations. We compare LLM-generated counterfactuals with pragmatics-based perturbations as alternative ways to construct test cases for assessing the potential usefulness of explanations. Our results show that self-explanations consistently improve simulation accuracy for both LLM judges and humans, but the degree and stability of gains depend strongly on the perturbation strategy and judge strength. We also conduct a qualitative analysis of free-text justifications written by human users when predicting the model's behavior, which provides evidence that access to explanations helps humans form more accurate predictions on the perturbed questions.

Compact Example-Based Explanations for Language Models

Training data influence estimation methods quantify the contribution of training documents to a model's output, making them a promising source of information for example-based explanations. As humans cannot interpret thousands of documents, only a small subset of the training data can be presented as an explanation. Although the choice of which documents to include directly affects explanation quality, previous evaluations of such systems have largely ignored any selection strategies. To address this, we propose a novel selection relevance score, a retraining-free metric that quantifies how useful a set of examples is for explaining a model's output. We validate this score through fine-tuning experiments, confirming that it can predict whether a set of examples supports or undermines the model's predictions. Using this metric, we further show that common selection strategies often underperform random selection. Motivated by this finding, we propose a strategy that balances influence and representativeness, enabling better use of selection budgets than naively selecting the highest-ranking examples.

Persistent Personas? Role-Playing, Instruction Following, and Safety in Extended Interactions

Persona-assigned large language models (LLMs) are used in domains such as education, healthcare, and sociodemographic simulation. Yet, they are typically evaluated only in short, single-round settings that do not reflect real-world usage. We introduce an evaluation protocol that combines long persona dialogues (over 100 rounds) and evaluation datasets to create dialogue-conditioned benchmarks that can robustly measure long-context effects. We then investigate the effects of dialogue length on persona fidelity, instruction-following, and safety of seven state-of-the-art open- and closed-weight LLMs. We find that persona fidelity degrades over the course of dialogues, especially in goal-oriented conversations, where models must sustain both persona fidelity and instruction following. We identify a trade-off between fidelity and instruction following, with non-persona baselines initially outperforming persona-assigned models; as dialogues progress and fidelity fades, persona responses become increasingly similar to baseline responses. Our findings highlight the fragility of persona applications in extended interactions and our work provides a protocol to systematically measure such failures.

Principled Personas: Defining and Measuring the Intended Effects of Persona Prompting on Task Performance

Expert persona prompting -- assigning roles such as expert in math to language models -- is widely used for task improvement. However, prior work shows mixed results on its effectiveness, and does not consider when and why personas should improve performance. We analyze the literature on persona prompting for task improvement and distill three desiderata: 1) performance advantage of expert personas, 2) robustness to irrelevant persona attributes, and 3) fidelity to persona attributes. We then evaluate 9 state-of-the-art LLMs across 27 tasks with respect to these desiderata. We find that expert personas usually lead to positive or non-significant performance changes. Surprisingly, models are highly sensitive to irrelevant persona details, with performance drops of almost 30 percentage points. In terms of fidelity, we find that while higher education, specialization, and domain-relatedness can boost performance, their effects are often inconsistent or negligible across tasks. We propose mitigation strategies to improve robustness -- but find they only work for the largest, most capable models. Our findings underscore the need for more careful persona design and for evaluation schemes that reflect the intended effects of persona usage.

Influences on LLM Calibration: A Study of Response Agreement, Loss Functions, and Prompt Styles

Calibration, the alignment between model confidence and prediction accuracy, is critical for the reliable deployment of large language models (LLMs). Existing works neglect to measure the generalization of their methods to other prompt styles and different sizes of LLMs. To address this, we define a controlled experimental setting covering 12 LLMs and four prompt styles. We additionally investigate if incorporating the response agreement of multiple LLMs and an appropriate loss function can improve calibration performance. Concretely, we build Calib-n, a novel framework that trains an auxiliary model for confidence estimation that aggregates responses from multiple LLMs to capture inter-model agreement. To optimize calibration, we integrate focal and AUC surrogate losses alongside binary cross-entropy. Experiments across four datasets demonstrate that both response agreement and focal loss improve calibration from baselines. We find that few-shot prompts are the most effective for auxiliary model-based methods, and auxiliary models demonstrate robust calibration performance across accuracy variations, outperforming LLMs' internal probabilities and verbalized confidences. These insights deepen the understanding of influence factors in LLM calibration, supporting their reliable deployment in diverse applications.

From Calculation to Adjudication: Examining LLM judges on Mathematical Reasoning Tasks

To reduce the need for human annotations, large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as judges of the quality of other candidate models. LLM judges are typically evaluated by measuring the correlation with human judgments on generation tasks such as summarization or machine translation. In contrast, we study LLM judges on mathematical reasoning tasks. These tasks require multi-step reasoning, and the correctness of their solutions is verifiable, enabling a more objective evaluation. We perform a detailed performance analysis and find that the used judges are mostly unable to improve task performance but are able to pick the better model. Our analysis uncovers a strong correlation between judgment performance and the candidate model task performance. We observe that judges tend to choose the model of higher quality even if its answer is incorrect. Further, we show that it is possible to use statistics, such as the task performances of the individual models, to predict judgment performance. In an ablation, we either swap or mask the candidate answers and observe that judges often keep the original judgment, providing evidence that judges incorporate writing style in their judgments. In summary, we find that regularities in the judgments are quantifiable using statistical measures and provide various angles on exploiting them.