Can Global XAI Methods Reveal Injected Behaviours in LLMs? SHAP vs Rule Extraction vs RuleSHAP
Francesco Sovrano
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) can amplify misinformation, undermining societal goals such as the UN SDGs. We study three documented drivers of misinformation ( valence framing, information overload, and oversimplification ) often shaped by default beliefs. Building on evidence that LLMs encode such defaults (e.g., "joy is positive", "math is complex") and can act as "bags of heuristics", we ask whether belief-driven heuristics behind misinformation-related behaviour can be recovered from black-box LLM behaviour as explicit rules. A key obstacle is that global rule-extraction methods in explainable AI (XAI) are built for numerical input-output data, not text. We address this by eliciting global LLM beliefs and mapping them to numerical scores via statistically validated abstractions, enabling off-the-shelf global XAI to detect belief-driven heuristics. For ground truth, we inject nonlinear behavioural triggers of increasing complexity (univariate, conjunctive, non-convex) into GPT-family and Llama models via system instructions. We find that RuleFit often misses non-univariate triggers, while global SHAP better ranks conjunctive trigger features but yields no symbolic rules. To bridge this gap, we propose RuleSHAP, a rule-extraction algorithm that couples global SHAP aggregates with rule induction to better capture non-univariate triggers, improving MRR@1 over RuleFit by +82% on average. Our results suggest a practical pathway for surfacing behavioural triggers in LLMs.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext cb1f5579-033a-4259-b6ec-e11640d42e4bCited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on6
- Evaluating the Moral Beliefs Encoded in LLMsNino Scherrer, Claudia Shi, Amir Feder, David M. BleiNeurIPS 2023 · 316 citations
- Transcoders find interpretable LLM feature circuitsJacob Dunefsky, Philippe Chlenski, Neel NandaNeurIPS 2024 · 222 citations
- Assessing Large Language Models on Climate InformationJannis Bulian, Mike S. Schäfer, Afra Amini, Heidi Lam et al.ICML 2024 · 39 citations
- Neuron-Anchored Rule Extraction for Large Language Models via Contrastive Hierarchical AblationFrancesco Sovrano, Gabriele Dominici, Marc LangheinrichKDD 2026 · 3 citations
- Arithmetic Without Algorithms: Language Models Solve Math with a Bag of HeuristicsYaniv Nikankin, Anja Reusch, Aaron Mueller, Yonatan BelinkovICLR 2025
Related papers
- Accommodation and Epistemic Vigilance: A Pragmatic Account of Why LLMs Fail to Challenge Harmful BeliefsMyra Cheng, Robert D. Hawkins, Dan JurafskyACL 2026 · 6 citations
- Truth over Tricks: Measuring and Mitigating Shortcut Learning in Misinformation DetectionHerun Wan, Jiaying Wu, Minnan Luo, Zhi Zeng et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 14 citations
- Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought PromptingMiles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, Samuel R. BowmanNeurIPS 2023 · 1,792 citations
- Exploring the Impact of Instruction-Tuning on LLM's Susceptibility to MisinformationKyubeen Han, Junseo Jang, Hongjin Kim, Geunyeong Jeong et al.ACL 2025
- Large Language Model (LLM)-driven Adversarial Social Influences in Online Information Spread: Risks and InterventionsZhuoran Lu, Gionnieve Lim, Ming YinCHI 2026
