Authors: Vishal Pramanik, Maisha Maliha, Nathaniel D. Bastian, Sumit Kumar Jha
Organizations: Department of Computer & Information Science & Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA · School of Computer Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA · Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996, USA
Attribution methods seek to explain language model predictions by quantifying the contribution of input tokens to generated outputs. However, most existing techniques are designed for encoder-based architectures and rely on linear approximations that fail to capture the causal and semantic complexities of autoregressive generation in decoder-only models. To address these limitations, we propose Hessian-Enhanced Token Attribution (HETA), a novel attribution framework tailored for decoder-only language models. HETA combines three complementary components: a semantic transition vector that captures token-to-token influence across layers, Hessian-based sensitivity scores that model second-order effects, and KL divergence to measure information loss when tokens are masked. This unified design produces context-aware, causally faithful, and semantically grounded attributions. Additionally, we introduce a curated benchmark dataset for systematically evaluating attribution quality in generative settings. Empirical evaluations across multiple models and datasets demonstrate that HETA consistently outperforms existing methods in attribution faithfulness and alignment with human annotations, establishing a new standard for interpretability in autoregressive language models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of HETA. The pipeline (a) rolls out attention–value flows that end at the target token to form a causal gate over input tokens, (b) estimates token-level curvature via scalable Hessian–vector products to capture nonlinear interactions, and (c) measures KL-based information impact under token masking. The final attribution combines causal gating, curvature sensitivity, and information gain to produce target-conditioned, token-level explanations.
Method
GPT-J
LLaMA
Phi-3
Qwen2.5
IG
-0.34
-0.28
-0.41
-0.31
ContextCite
-0.12
-0.09
-0.18
-0.14
Peering (PML)
-0.25
-0.21
-0.30
-0.22
TDD-backward
-0.31
-0.27
-0.36
-0.29
Attention Rollout
-0.44
-0.39
-0.52
-0.41
fAML
2.10
2.30
2.05
2.20
Table 1: Attribution alignment on the curated dataset using the (Dependent Sentence Attribution) metric. We evaluate robustness across both model size and architecture by testing HETA on diverse decoder-only LMs, spanning different parameter scales and design choices. Higher scores indicate stronger alignment with human-annotated tokens. HETA outperforms all baselines.
Figure 2: (a)-(c) Analysis of HETA components. Each bar plot shows the effect of ablating key components of HETA. The full HETA model achieves the highest attribution faithfulness and alignment across all metrics, while removing individual components consistently degrades performance.(d) Input importance distributions for a generative task using our proposed HETA method.
Figure 3: (a)-(c) Analysis of robustness of HETA vs baseline methods (Left) Sensitivity under Gaussian perturbations (lower is better), where HETA maintains the lowest variance across input noise. (Center) Active/Passive robustness (higher is better), reflecting attribution consistency across syntactic rephrasings. (Right) Alignment F1 score against annotated tokens (higher is better). HETA outperforms all baselines, validating the complementary role of transition flow, curvature, and information gain.(d) Input importance distributions for a generative task using our proposed HETA method using Qwen 2.5 3B.
Model
Metric
HETA
ContextCite
IG
PML
TDD-bw
AttnRoll
fAML
ProgInf
SEA-CoT
ReAgent
Llama-3.1 70B
Soft-NC
0.6
2.6
2.7
2.4
3.1
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.3
Soft-NS
0.8
3.1
3.0
2.8
3.4
2.7
2.9
2.8
3.0
2.6
DSA
0.6
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.8
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.2
Table 2: Sensitivity of attribution metrics to decoding hyperparameters (max relative change Δ% ; lower is better). HETA varies <1% across all models/metrics; each baseline fluctuates >2% . Grid: temperature ∈{0.2,0.5,0.9} , top- p∈{0.8,0.9,0.95} , top- k∈{20,50,100} , repetition penalty ∈{1.0,1.2} ; 3 seeds.
Attribution Method
LongRA
TellMeWhy
WikiBio
Soft-NC ↑
Soft-NS ↑
Soft-NC ↑
Soft-NS ↑
Soft-NC ↑
Soft-NS ↑
GPT-J 6B
ContextCite
1.42
0.03
1.46
-0.22
0.49
-0.08
Integrated Gradients
1.87
0.45
1.54
0.04
1.38
0.77
Peering (PML)
2.05
0.50
1.68
0.06
1.50
0.83
TDD-backward
1.10
-0.12
1.89
-0.03
0.11
0.51
Table 3: Attribution faithfulness on benchmark datasets (LongRA, TellMeWhy, WikiBio) using GPT-J 6B, Phi-3-Medium-14B, and LLaMA-3.1 70B. Evaluated with Soft-NC and Soft-NS; higher is better. Mean of 3 runs; std <±0.06 .
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Attribution Method
LongRA
TellMeWhy
WikiBio
Soft-NC ↑
Soft-NS ↑
Soft-NC ↑
Soft-NS ↑
Soft-NC ↑
Soft-NS ↑
Qwen2.5 3B
Integrated Gradients
1.20
0.14
1.30
0.09
1.10
0.18
ContextCite
1.90
0.56
1.65
0.47
1.45
0.79
Peering (PML)
2.05
0.61
1.80
0.50
1.60
0.85
TDD-backward
1.05
-0.08
1.82
0.00
0.12
0.49
Appendix
Table 4: Attribution faithfulness on Qwen2.5 3B across LongRA, TellMeWhy, and WikiBio using Soft-NC and Soft-NS. Higher scores indicate stronger robustness and alignment. Mean of 3 runs; std <±0.06 .
Configuration
Soft-NC
Soft-NS
DSA
HETA (Full)
9.78
2.31
4.70
Transition Only
3.12
1.52
2.21
Hessian Only
2.89
1.45
2.97
KL Only
2.23
1.21
2.74
No Transition Gating
4.31
1.84
1.68
Uniform Transition
3.89
1.76
1.54
Appendix
Table 5: Ablation study of HETA components. Reported values are averaged across all datasets for GPT-J 6B. Mean over independent 3 runs and std <±0.2
β (Hessian)
γ (KL)
Faithfulness ↓
Sensitivity ↓
Robustness ↑
F1 (Alignment) ↑
0.0
1.0
0.179
0.022
0.70
0.82
0.2
0.8
0.143
0.027
0.78
0.84
0.5
0.5
0.108
0.025
0.91
0.89
0.8
0.2
0.124
0.041
0.86
0.81
1.0
0.0
0.254
0.087
0.54
0.68
Appendix
Table 6: Performance of HETA for different (β,γ) under the constraint β+γ=1 . Lower is better for faithfulness/sensitivity; higher is better for robustness/F1. Mean over 3 runs; std <±0.05 .
Variant
Sensitivity ↓
Act./Pass. Robustness ↑
F1 (Alignment) ↑
Full HETA
0.025
0.91
0.89
Transition Only
0.031
0.72
0.76
Hessian Only
0.087
0.54
0.68
KL Only
0.022
0.70
0.82
No Transition Gating
0.049
0.68
0.79
Uniform Transition
0.038
0.61
0.74
Appendix
Table 7: Ablation of the HETA framework. Lower sensitivity and higher robustness/F1 indicate better attribution quality. Mean over 3 runs and std <±0.04
Variant
Runtime (s)
AOPC ↑
F1 ↑
HETA (Full)
455
0.61
0.89
HETA-LR (rank=64)
330
0.59
0.86
HETA-LS (6 layers)
305
0.57
0.84
HETA-GS (grad-squared only)
240
0.52
0.81
Appendix
Table 8: Runtime and attribution quality for Hessian approximations on 1,000 examples (sequence length = 512). AOPC and F1 represent attribution faithfulness and human alignment, respectively.
Variant
AOPC ↑
Runtime (s)
HETA (Full)
0.58
1,230
HETA-WIN (512-window)
0.54
690
HETA-LR+WIN
0.55
580
HETA-LS+WIN
0.52
525
Appendix
Table 9: Faithfulness and runtime for long-context attribution (sequence length = 2,048). Windowed methods use 512-token chunks with 50% overlap. Mean over 3 runs and std <±0.04
Model
Metric
HETA
ContextCite
IG
PML
TDD-bw
AttnRoll
fAML
ProgInf
SEA-CoT
ReAgent
GPT-J 6B
Soft-NC
0.8
3.0
3.2
2.6
3.8
2.5
2.9
2.7
2.8
2.4
Soft-NS
0.9
3.6
3.4
3.0
4.2
2.9
3.1
3.0
3.2
2.7
DSA
0.7
2.7
2.5
2.3
3.1
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.1
Llama-3.1 70B
Soft-NC
0.6
2.6
2.7
2.4
3.1
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.3
Soft-NS
0.8
3.1
3.0
2.8
3.4
2.7
2.9
2.8
3.0
2.6
DSA
0.6
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.8
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.2
Appendix
Table 10: Sensitivity of attribution metrics to decoding hyperparameters (max relative change Δ% ; lower is better). HETA varies <1% across all models/metrics; each baseline fluctuates >2% . Grid: temperature ∈{0.2,0.5,0.9} , top- p∈{0.8,0.9,0.95} , top- k∈{20,50,100} , repetition penalty ∈{1.0,1.2} ; 3 seeds.
Variant
AOPC ↑
DSA ↑
Runtime ↓
Memory ↓εM(W)↓
HETA (Full)
0.60
4.68
1,280
1.00 × 0.000
HETA-LR (rank=64)
0.58
4.55
850
0.78 × 0.006
HETA-WIN ( W=512 , 50% overlap)
0.56
4.40
690
0.72 × 0.021
HETA-LS (top 6 layers)
0.55
4.30
760
0.75 × 0.012
HETA-LR+WIN (r=64, W=512 )
0.59
4.58
610
0.66 × 0.010
Appendix
Table 11: Compute–quality ablation for HETA (long contexts). Backbone: GPT-J 6B . Results are averaged over LongRA , TellMeWhy , and WikiBio with sequence length 2,048 (batch size 8). “Runtime” is seconds per 1,000 examples; “Memory” is peak activation memory relative to Full; εM(W) is an empirical window-leakage proxy (lower is better). Mean of 3 runs; std <±0.02 for AOPC/DSA and <±20 s for runtime. The same ranking and gaps are observed on Llama-3.1 70B when restricting curvature to the last 6 layers (omitted for brevity).
GPT-J 6B
Method
Patch-Corr ↑
Intervention@5 ↑
Misattr. ↓
HETA (Full)
0.78 ± 0.03
0.143 ± 0.012
0.12 ± 0.02
HETA – No-Gate
0.53 ± 0.04
0.089 ± 0.010
0.27 ± 0.03
Attention Rollout
0.49 ± 0.04
0.081 ± 0.011
0.30 ± 0.03
Token Gradients
0.41 ± 0.05
0.067 ± 0.009
0.35 ± 0.04
Causal Tracing (baseline)
0.62 ± 0.03
0.105 ± 0.011
0.21 ± 0.03
Appendix
Table 12: Intervention-based causal sanity check. Mean over 2,000 examples; ± denotes std across examples. Top- k=5 . HETA’s target-conditioned gate yields the strongest alignment with interventional effects (highest Patch-Corr and Intervention@5, lowest Misattribution).
Method / Variant
Causal Pass@5 ↑
CF-AOPC ↑
Fact EM Δ↑
Tool Hit@1 Δ↑
Span-F1 ↑
Decoding Δ%↓
HETA (Full)
0.86
0.63
+3.7
+4.1
0.81
0.8
HETA (LR+WIN)
0.84
0.60
+3.3
+3.8
0.78
0.9
HETA (w/o Hessian)
0.77
0.53
+2.5
+2.7
0.72
1.6
HETA (w/o KL)
0.73
0.49
+2.0
+2.3
0.69
1.8
HETA (w/o Transition)
0.70
0.45
+1.6
+1.9
0.64
2.1
ContextCite
0.58
0.36
+1.2
+1.4
0.55
2.9
Appendix
Table 13: Causal and downstream robustness ablation. Higher is better for Causal Pass@5, Counterfactual AOPC, Fact-checking EM Δ , Tool Hit@1 Δ , and Span-F1. Lower is better for Decoding Stability Δ% . Results averaged over four models (LLaMA-3.1 70B, Phi-3 14B, GPT-J 6B, Qwen2.5 3B); std <±0.05 for additive metrics and <±0.2 pp for Δ% .
Figure 4: Word-level attribution visualization for predicting the final word “slice.” Each word is shaded based on its importance score for predicting “slice.” Darker red indicates higher attribution.
Figure 5: Word-level attribution visualization for predicting the final word “friends.” Bounding boxes highlight influential context words (e.g., “shared,” “pictures,” “zoo”) contributing to the prediction of “friends.” Darker red denotes higher importance.
Figure 6: Word-level attribution visualization for predicting the final word “bush.” Attribution scores emphasize context words such as “hat,” “stuck,” and “park,” which strongly influence the prediction of “bush.”
Method
AOPC ↑
DSA ↑
Runtime (s) ↓
Peak Mem (GB) ↓
HETA (Full)
0.61
4.70
455
53.2
HETA–LR (rank=64)
0.59
4.55
330
41.6
HETA–LS (4 layers)
0.57
4.38
305
39.9
HETA–WIN (512/50%)
0.55
4.29
295
34.1
HETA–LR+WIN
0.58
4.52
245
31.7
Appendix
Table 14: GPT-J 6B @ L=1024 , B=8 (1,000 ex). Mean over 3 runs; std <±0.04 .
Method
AOPC ↑
DSA ↑
Runtime (s) ↓
Peak Mem (GB) ↓
HETA (Full)
0.60
4.85
520
47.0
HETA–LR (rank=64)
0.58
4.68
375
39.0
HETA–LS (4 layers)
0.56
4.55
345
37.2
HETA–WIN (512/50%)
0.55
4.47
325
33.1
HETA–LR+WIN
0.57
4.63
275
30.2
Appendix
Table 15: Phi-3 14B @ L=1024 , B=8 (1,000 ex). Mean over 3 runs; std <±0.05 .
Method
AOPC ↑
DSA ↑
Runtime (s) ↓
Peak Mem (GB) ↓
HETA (Full)
0.59
4.40
310
24.0
HETA–LR (rank=64)
0.58
4.30
235
20.1
HETA–LS (4 layers)
0.56
4.18
220
19.2
HETA–WIN (512/50%)
0.54
4.12
205
17.3
HETA–LR+WIN
0.56
4.26
180
16.1
Appendix
Table 16: Qwen2.5 3B @ L=1024 , B=8 (1,000 ex). Mean over 3 runs; std <±0.05 .
Method
AOPC ↑
DSA ↑
Runtime (s) ↓
Peak Mem (GB) ↓
HETA (Full, 6 layers)
0.60
5.10
1180
74.5
HETA–LR (rank=64)
0.58
4.92
860
61.3
HETA–WIN (512/50%)
0.56
4.80
720
55.8
HETA–LR+WIN
0.57
4.96
620
49.7
Appendix
Table 17: Llama-3.1 70B @ L=2048 , B=4 (500 ex). Curvature on last 6 layers. Mean over 3 runs; std <±0.05 .
Method
MoRF ↑
LeRF ↓
ABPC ↑
AOPC-Del ↑
AOPC-Ins ↑
Integrated Gradients
40.8
43.2
0.35
0.52
0.42
Attention Rollout
41.3
42.9
0.40
0.53
0.43
ContextCite
41.7
42.5
0.45
0.54
0.44
ReAGent
42.6
41.9
0.52
0.57
0.47
GiLOT ( Li et al., 2024 )
43.1
41.3
0.58
0.59
0.49
HETA (Ours)
44.0
40.2
0.65
0.60
0.51
Appendix
Table 18: Extended faithfulness comparison on GPT-J 6B / LongRA using classical perturbation metrics. HETA achieves the highest scores across all metrics. GiLOT is consistently the second-best method. Mean of 3 runs; std <±0.04 .
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across diverse applications, raising critical questions for governance, accountability, and data provenance. Understanding which training data most influenced a model's output remains a fundamental open problem. We address this challenge through training data attribution (TDA) for auto-regressive LLMs by expanding upon the inverse formulation: How would training data be affected if the model had seen the generated output during training? Our method perturbs the base model using bidirectional gradient optimization (gradient ascent and descent) on a generated text sample and measures the resulting change in loss across training samples. Our framework supports attribution at arbitrary data granularity, enabling both factual and stylistic attribution. We evaluate our method against baselines on pretrained models with known datasets, and show that it outperforms previous work on influence metrics, thereby enhancing model interpretability, an essential requirement for accountable AI systems.
Frédéric Berdoz, Luca A. Lanzendörfer, Kaan Bayraktar +1
Feature attribution methods promise to identify which input features matter for a model output. In generative language models, however, it is often unclear what should count as a feature in the first place. In autoregressive language models, earlier generated tokens are both outputs of the model and inputs to later predictions. In diffusion language models, generation proceeds through iterative denoising or unmasking rather than fixed left-to-right prediction, so local explanation may target a state of diffusion rather than a next token. We argue that this ambiguity is not merely an implementation detail, but a conceptual limitation of carrying classifier-era feature attribution directly into generative language modeling. We introduce the Attribution Contract, a specification for feature-attribution claims that names what output is being explained, which features are eligible to receive attribution, what generative process is assumed, what is held fixed, and what model score is being attributed. The contract clarifies why the same attribution method can answer different questions depending on how it is instantiated. We argue that many disagreements about feature attribution in generative language models are not disagreements about attribution algorithms, but about unstated explanatory contracts. Using autoregressive and diffusion language models as case studies, we show when attribution to earlier generated tokens, intermediate states, or denoising stages is informative, when it is misleading, and why feature-attribution methods in generative language models should be evaluated as method-contract pairs.
The generative nature of Large Language Models (LLMs) is reflected in the conditional probabilities they compute to sample each response token given the previous tokens. These probabilities encode the distributional structure that the model learns in training and exploits in inference. In this work, we use these probabilities to situate LLMs within the mathematical theory of stochastic processes. We use this framework to design a model-agnostic probabilistic token attribution measure, using Bayes rule to invert the next-token log-probabilities so as to capture the models internal representation of the distribution over token sequences. The representation is independent of the models computational structure. This representation yields the conditional probability of the response given the prompt, and of the response given the prompt with a token marginalized away. Our attribution score is the log of the ratio of these probabilities. We further compute the entropies of a single prompts token distributions, conditioned on the remaining context. The interplay between entropy and attribution score sheds light on LLM behavior. We evaluate 8 models across 7 prompts and investigate anomalies, token sensitivity, response stability, model stability, and training convergence, thereby improving interpretability and guiding users to focus on uncertain or unstable parts of the generation.
Shilpika Shilpika, Carlo Graziani, Bethany Lusch +2
Argonne Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory Lemont, IL, USA · Mathematics and Computer Science Division Argonne National Laboratory Lemont, IL, USA · Department of Computer Science University of Illinois Chicago Chicago, IL, USA