Is my model perplexed for the right reason? Contrasting LLMs' Benchmark Behavior with Token-Level Perplexity
TL;DR
A simple, principled interpretability framework based on token-level perplexity to test whether models rely on linguistically relevant cues is introduced, revealing that models rely on heuristics other than the expected linguistic ones.
Abstract
Standard evaluations of Large language models (LLMs) focus on task performance, offering limited insight into whether correct behavior reflects appropriate underlying mechanisms and risking confirmation bias. We introduce a simple, principled interpretability framework based on token-level perplexity to test whether models rely on linguistically relevant cues. By comparing perplexity distributions over minimal sentence pairs differing in one or a few `pivotal'tokens, our method enables precise, hypothesis-driven analysis without relying on unstable feature-attribution techniques. Experiments on controlled linguistic benchmarks with several open-weight LLMs show that, while linguistically important tokens influence model behavior, they never fully explain perplexity shifts, revealing that models rely on heuristics other than the expected linguistic ones.
