arXiv subjects

Qianli Wang

Publications and source records attributed to Qianli Wang.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

SimXAI: A Simple Drop-in Layer Increases Interaction Quality and Understanding in Conversational XAI

Conversational explainable AI (ConvXAI) agents often use GUS-style architectures with separate modules for intent recognition, dialogue management, and template-based response generation. While faithful to the underlying XAI methods, these pipelines are hard to adapt and often struggle with context-dependent follow-up questions. We present SimXAI, a lightweight LLM-centric conversational layer that replaces these modules with a single tool-calling LLM that bridges access to existing XAI resources. Rather than a standalone agent, SimXAI serves as a modular interface that enables conversational access to external XAI resources. We further introduce an evaluation suite for single- and multi-turn parsing, faithfulness, and contextualization. Across existing and new datasets, SimXAI achieves strong function-selection accuracy and high faithfulness while better handling context-dependent requests. In a user study replacing only the conversational layer of TalkToModel, a representative GUS-based agent, users completed tasks more accurately and in fewer turn. Overall, SimXAI improves GUS-based design while preserving faithfulness and improving conversational quality.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

MisleadQA: Diagnosing LLM Failures under Misleading Context

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to answer questions from retrieved or user-provided context. However, provided context can be factually true yet out-of-scope, describing a different entity, time, or location from the one the question targets, and still lead models to a wrong answer. Prior work has mainly studied factually false or irrelevant context. It remains unclear whether such out-of-scope context misleads models as much as false context, and whether adding gold context prevents models from being misled by either. We introduce **MisleadQA**, a diagnostic dataset of multiple-choice questions with an abstention option. Each question pairs gold context (G) with true but out-of-scope context (S) and false but in-scope context (F) supporting the same wrong answer. We evaluate six open-weight LLMs. On questions they answer correctly without context, providing S alone leads them to switch to this wrong answer in 29.3% of cases, and providing F alone does so in 75.4%. Adding G nearly removes the effect of S, but F still misleads models in 21.0% of cases, especially when F comes first. A context-faithful instruction reduces these errors mainly through abstention and lowers accuracy even with G. These findings suggest that evaluations should check whether context applies to the question, not only whether it is true, and should report correct, misled, and abstention rates together. Data and code are available at [https://anonymous.4open.science/r/MisleadQA](https://anonymous.4open.science/r/MisleadQA).

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Reliance Hypothesis: Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness Rises as Language Resource Level Falls

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) faithfulness matters for monitoring, explaining and safely deploying large language models, yet it has been studied mostly in English. Languages differ in level, the amount of text available to learn from, so models know less in lower-resource languages, which may change how much they rely on their reasoning. To our knowledge, we are the first to relate CoT faithfulness to both resource level and task type (knowledge- or reasoning-intensive). On parallel multiple-choice questions from Multilingual Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMMLU) in eight languages, faithfulness rises as resource level falls on knowledge-intensive tasks but not on reasoning-intensive ones, a gap that points the same way across four models and several faithfulness measures. We propose, and find support for, the Reliance Hypothesis: models rely more on their reasoning when they cannot recall the answer, as in lower-resource languages on knowledge-intensive tasks. Model confidence partly explains the effect of resource level, but not the knowledge-reasoning gap. Languages in which models are less confident rely more on reasoning, yet less confident answers within a language do not, a Simpson's paradox. In lower-resource languages, models rely on their reasoning for more answers, not more strongly for each. CoT monitoring may therefore be most informative in lower-resource languages, where it is least often validated.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

What Are We Measuring in NLG? A Meta-Analysis of Evaluation Trends 2020-2025

As Natural Language Generation (NLG) dominates modern NLP, scalable evaluation remains a critical bottleneck. Consequently, LLM-as-a-judge (LaaJ) adoption has accelerated rapidly, appearing in more papers than human evaluation in 2025. This pivotal shift motivates a critical analysis of current evaluation practices. Overcoming the limits of rigid keyword filtering and manual review, we employ a multi-LLM information extraction pipeline to gather structured metadata from 14,171 papers across four major NLP conferences (2020-2025). Analyzing 3,334 filtered NLG papers, we identify three systemic challenges. (1) Metric inertia: despite the shift toward open-ended generation, legacy lexical metrics (BLEU, ROUGE) persist as primary indicators, typically used alongside rather than replaced by semantic alternatives. (2) Metric-criteria mapping problem: our paper-level co-occurrence data reveals that general-purpose automatic metrics are applied as broad proxies for quality, without specifying which dimension of text generation they are intended to evaluate. (3) Validation gap: LaaJ has grown rapidly without commensurate human validation (fewer than 8% of papers). Crucially, while LaaJ correlates with aggregate quality, alignment collapses on fine-grained criteria like fluency. To address these gaps, we distill our findings into a minimal Evaluation Checklist to guide metric selection, construct validity, and LaaJ deployment.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

From Concept Alignment to Causal Grounding: An Intervention Test of Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness

Chain-of-thought (CoT) can sound plausible yet be unfaithful to the model's underlying reasoning. Most prior work probes CoT faithfulness through input--output behavior or input attributions, leaving internal computation largely underexplored. We instead cast faithfulness as internal concept grounding: Does a large language model's (LLM) CoT reasoning engage the same internal concepts that support the LLM's direct prediction, and do the shared concepts causally drive its answer? Encoding a prediction pass and a CoT pass with a single shared sparse autoencoder (SAE), a reliable approximator of the latent concepts LLMs use, makes their internal concepts directly comparable. We introduce three correlational metrics of concept-level alignment and a causal metric, $Δp$, which ablates the shared concepts and measures the drop in answer probability. Across five LLMs and four datasets, concept alignment is generally high, as indicated by the correlational metrics; yet these only identify which concepts are shared, not how much they causally contribute. $Δp$ fills this gap: causal faithfulness varies substantially with model depth, peaking at mid-to-late layers rather than the final ones, and model scale reshapes the layer-wise profile. Moreover, causally important shared concepts are not always verbalized in the CoT. These dissociations suggest that faithfulness cannot be reliably assessed from surface-level or representational correspondence alone; assessing it requires causal tests of whether the internal concepts underlying a CoT actually drive the model's prediction.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

eTracer: Polarity-Aware Evidence Grounding

Evidence grounding makes generated content verifiable by linking statements to their sources. However, effective verifiability requires two properties that existing methods fail to jointly provide: verification granularity, the ability to localize fine-grained evidence for each statement, and verification completeness, the ability to capture both support and contradiction. Existing methods either operate at granularities too coarse for rapid inspection or are support-only. We formalize polarity-aware evidence grounding: linking each response sentence to its contextual evidence with a supporting, contradicting, or irrelevant label. We construct eTracer-Bench, a human-annotated benchmark with 7,905 supporting and contradicting sentence pairs across seven domains, covering both explicit and implicit contradictions. We further propose eTracer, a post-hoc framework whose context-aware signed scorer recovers the full evidence map in a single forward pass per response, with localization and polarity emerging jointly from one mechanism. eTracer achieves the best overall Citation F1 of 82.39, driven by a Contradict F1 of 89.20. A pre-registered within-subjects user study (n = 30) shows that polarity-aware grounding nearly doubles contradiction detection over the document-level baseline (27.9% to 51.9%, Cohen's d = 0.82, p = 0.0003), and suggests a false-completeness bias under which support-only grounding fails to improve over this baseline (23.4% vs. 27.9%). Dataset and code: https://github.com/chubohao/eTracer.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Locally Sound, Globally Insufficient: The Local-Global Gap in Multi-Hop Reasoning

Reliable multi-hop reasoning requires more than locally supported steps: a trace can be sound at every reasoning step yet still fail to answer the question as a whole. We call this failure regime the local-global gap (LGG), in which the trace is locally sound yet globally insufficient. Local soundness requires each step to be supported by the available evidence and preceding steps, whereas global sufficiency requires the reasoning trace to align with the question and establish the submitted answer. In a human-adjudicated diagnostic of 2,598 responses across three multi-hop QA benchmarks and three models, we find that the LGG occurs in every benchmark-model combination and accounts for nearly half of globally insufficient responses overall. However, conventional faithfulness verifiers that check claims against the evidence largely miss these failures: at thresholds retaining at least 95% of reliable traces, recall for LGG cases is substantially lower than that for locally unsound traces. To address these failures, we formalize three dependencies for reliable reasoning: evidence-to-step support, question-to-trace alignment, and trace-to-answer closure. Instead of post-hoc diagnosis, we introduce E-Closure to supervise these dependencies during training, combining generation supervision on supported original and counterfactual responses with bidirectional switching constraints. Averaged over three benchmarks and three backbones, existing fine-tuning baselines improve accuracy and local soundness over the base models, but at the cost of global sufficiency. E-Closure improves both: among all fine-tuned methods, it achieves the highest average accuracy (92.8%) and trace reliability (89.0%) while yielding the lowest LGG rate (6.2%).

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Judge Circuits Explain Format-Induced Inconsistency in LLM-as-a-Judge

LLM-as-a-judge has become the dominant paradigm for grading model outputs at scale, yet the same model assigns systematically different scores when its output format changes (e.g., a 1-5 rating vs. a True/False label). Existing diagnoses of these format-induced inconsistencies stop at the input-output level. Using Position-aware Edge Attribution Patching (PEAP), we causally investigate the internal mechanism in five open-weight instruction-tuned models (Gemma-3, Qwen2.5, Llama-3.1) across five judgment tasks. We find that judgments across structured understanding and open-ended preference tasks share a sparse Latent Evaluator sub-graph in the mid-to-late layers; zero-ablating it collapses judgment while damaging knowledge probes substantially less than a random ablation of equal size in architecturally modular models. By structurally decoupling abstract judging from output formatting, we provide a mechanistic account of format-induced inconsistency on the open-weight models we study: a continuous judgment signal computed in the shared trunk is mapped through fragile, format-specific terminal branches. The judgment itself can therefore be read out independently of the requested output format. Our findings imply that benchmark comparisons of judge reliability across formats partly measure the fragile formatting stage, and can understate the quality of the underlying evaluation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Limitations of Automated Simulatability: LLM Simulators Can Bypass Explanations

Simulatability is an evaluation protocol for explanations that quantifies their usefulness by how well they help a user predict a task model's outputs. Since human evaluation is costly, automated simulatability replaces human explainees with LLM simulators, as proposed in ConSim (Poché et al., 2025) for large-scale experiments. We qualitatively replicate and extend ConSim's ranking of explanation methods across the tested datasets, explanation families, and simulator LLMs, and identify two limitations. First, when class names are meaningful, simulators can obtain high simulatability by solving the classification task directly, without relying on the explanations. Second, class anonymization can reward explanations for leaking the hidden label mapping, a limitation we expose with a new classes-as-concepts baseline. These results are consistent with a shortcut hypothesis: in the tested settings, simulator predictions mainly rely on task priors, while explanations produce small changes. We derive recommendations for more robust automated simulatability evaluations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Can Large Language Models Still Explain Themselves? Investigating the Impact of Quantization on Self-Explanations

Quantization is widely used to accelerate inference and streamline the deployment of large language models (LLMs), yet its effects on self-explanations (SEs) remain unexplored. SEs, generated by LLMs to justify their own outputs, require reasoning about the model's own decision-making process, a capability that may exhibit particular sensitivity to quantization. As SEs are increasingly relied upon for transparency in high-stakes applications, understanding whether and to what extent quantization degrades SE quality and faithfulness is critical. To address this gap, we examine two types of SEs: natural language explanations (NLEs) and counterfactual examples, generated by LLMs quantized using three common techniques at distinct bit widths. Our findings indicate that quantization typically leads to moderate declines in both SE quality (up to 4.4%) and faithfulness (up to 3.9%). The user study further demonstrates that quantization considerably diminishes both the coherence and trustworthiness of SEs (by up to 8.5%). Compared to smaller models, larger models show limited resilience to quantization in terms of SE quality but maintain more faithfulness. Moreover, no quantization technique consistently excels across task accuracy, SE quality, and faithfulness. Because quantization's impact varies considerably by context and can be sizable in specific cases, we recommend validating SE quality for the intended use case. Despite these sometimes considerable drops, quantization remains an effective compression technique when its impact on SEs is properly validated.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

iFlip: Iterative Feedback-driven Counterfactual Example Refinement

Counterfactual examples are minimal edits to an input that alter a model's prediction. They are widely employed in explainable AI to probe model behavior and in natural language processing (NLP) to augment training data. However, generating valid counterfactuals with large language models (LLMs) remains challenging, as existing single-pass methods often fail to induce reliable label changes, neglecting LLMs' self-correction capabilities. To explore this untapped potential, we propose iFlip, an iterative refinement approach that leverages three types of feedback, including model confidence, feature attribution, and natural language. Our results show that iFlip achieves an average 57.8% higher validity than the five state-of-the-art baselines, as measured by the label flipping rate. The user study further corroborates that iFlip outperforms baselines in completeness, overall satisfaction, and feasibility. In addition, ablation studies demonstrate that three components are paramount for iFlip to generate valid counterfactuals: leveraging an appropriate number of iterations, pointing to highly attributed words, and early stopping. Finally, counterfactuals generated by iFlip enable effective counterfactual data augmentation, substantially improving model performance and robustness.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Macro: Enhancing Multilingual Counterfactual Explanations through Alignment-as-Preference Optimization

Self-generated counterfactual explanations (SCEs) are minimally modified inputs (minimality) generated by large language models (LLMs) that flip their own predictions (validity), offering a causally grounded approach to unraveling black-box LLM behavior. Yet extending them beyond English remains challenging: existing methods struggle to produce valid SCEs in non-dominant languages, and a persistent trade-off between validity and minimality undermines explanation quality. We introduce Macro, a preference alignment framework that applies Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to multilingual SCE generation, using a composite scoring function to construct preference pairs that effectively translate the trade-off into measurable preference signals. Experiments across four LLMs and seven typologically diverse languages show that Macro improves validity by 12.55\% on average over the chain-of-thought baseline without degrading minimality, while avoiding the severe minimality violations of the translation-based baseline. Compared to supervised fine-tuning, Macro achieves superior performance on both metrics, confirming that explicit preference optimization is essential for balancing this trade-off. Further analyses reveal that Macro increases cross-lingual perturbation alignment and mitigates common generation errors. Our results highlight preference optimization as a promising direction for enhancing multilingual model explanations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Investigating the Interplay between Contextual and Parametric Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness under Optimization

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) faithfulness, i.e., whether CoTs genuinely reflect large language models' (LLM) underlying behavior, is typically evaluated with metrics under two disjoint paradigms: contextual faithfulness, measured by perturbing the input or CoT trace, and parametric faithfulness, assessed by intervening on a model's parametric knowledge. Yet prior work compares them only descriptively. We fill this gap by proposing FaithMATE, a unified preference-alignment interface for optimizing models towards either faithfulness paradigm. It enables us to investigate the interplay between the two paradigms, examining whether and to what extent faithfulness gains generalize within and across paradigms. Across three models, two datasets, and six faithfulness metrics, we find that the two paradigms are positively coupled, yet asymmetric: optimizing towards parametric faithfulness yields consistent gains across both paradigms, whereas the contextual counterpart delivers more variable gains. Within the contextual paradigm, faithfulness gains on one metric do not consistently transfer to others, implying that existing contextual metrics capture disjoint facets of faithfulness and exposing inherent trade-offs. These findings imply that CoT faithfulness is not a monolithic objective and therefore requires multifaceted optimization and evaluation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Low-Burden Data Augmentation for Dysarthric ASR via Zero-Shot Voice Cloning

Automatic speech recognition remains unreliable for dysarthric speech due to data scarcity and high inter-speaker variability. While synthetic data can address these gaps, traditional methods often require extensive speaker-specific data, reintroducing the collection bottleneck. We investigate zero-shot voice cloning as a low-burden augmentation strategy, using Higgs Audio V2 to clone speakers in the TORGO dataset. We fine-tune (FT) Whisper-medium on cloned, real, and hybrid data and evaluate on held-out real speech. Compared to the zero-shot (31.62%), Clone FT achieved a competitive 26.00% WER, nearly matching the 24.44% and 25.12% seen with Real and Hybrid FT, respectively. Notably, Clone and Hybrid FT outperform Real FT for moderate-severe speakers. Clone FT achieves the best results (11.45% relative) in cross-corpus evaluation on the SAP-1102. These results suggest that zero-shot cloning provides scalable training data that circumvents the costly data collection bottleneck.

eess.AS↗

arXiv2026

Through a Compressed Lens: Investigating The Impact of Quantization on Factual Knowledge Recall

Quantization methods are widely used to accelerate inference and streamline the deployment of large language models (LLMs). Although quantization's effects on various LLM capabilities have been extensively studied, one critical area remains underexplored: factual knowledge recall (FKR), the process by which LLMs access stored knowledge. To this end, we conduct comprehensive experiments using three common quantization techniques at distinct bit widths, in conjunction with interpretability-driven analyses on two tasks, knowledge memorization and latent multi-hop reasoning. We show that quantization typically results in information loss within LLMs, consequently diminishing their capacity for FKR. This effect is particularly amplified in smaller models within the same architectural families. However, models quantized at reduced bit precision do not consistently exhibit inferior performance and occasionally quantization may even enhance model FKR. We find that BitSandBytes demonstrates highest preservation of the original full-precision model's FKR. Despite variability across models and methods, quantization causes modest performance degradation and remains an effective compression strategy.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Locate, Steer, and Improve: A Practical Survey of Actionable Mechanistic Interpretability in Large Language Models

Mechanistic Interpretability (MI) has emerged as a vital approach to demystify the opaque decision-making of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, existing reviews primarily treat MI as an observational science, summarizing analytical insights while lacking a systematic framework for actionable intervention. To bridge this gap, we present a practical survey structured around the pipeline: "Locate, Steer, and Improve." We formally categorize Localizing (diagnosis) and Steering (intervention) methods based on specific Interpretable Objects to establish a rigorous intervention protocol. Furthermore, we demonstrate how this framework enables tangible improvements in Alignment, Capability, and Efficiency, effectively operationalizing MI as an actionable methodology for model optimization. The curated paper list of this work is available at https://github.com/rattlesnakey/Awesome-Actionable-MI-Survey.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Parallel Universes, Parallel Languages: A Comprehensive Study on LLM-based Multilingual Counterfactual Example Generation

Counterfactuals refer to minimally edited inputs that cause a model's prediction to change, serving as a promising approach to explaining the model's behavior. Large language models (LLMs) excel at generating English counterfactuals and demonstrate multilingual proficiency. However, their effectiveness in generating multilingual counterfactuals remains unclear. To this end, we conduct a comprehensive study on multilingual counterfactuals. We first conduct automatic evaluations on both directly generated counterfactuals in the target languages and those derived via English translation across six languages. Although translation-based counterfactuals offer higher validity than their directly generated counterparts, they demand substantially more modifications and still fall short of matching the quality of the original English counterfactuals. Second, we find the patterns of edits applied to high-resource European-language counterfactuals to be remarkably similar, suggesting that cross-lingual perturbations follow common strategic principles. Third, we identify and categorize four main types of errors that consistently appear in the generated counterfactuals across languages. Finally, we reveal that multilingual counterfactual data augmentation (CDA) yields larger model performance improvements than cross-lingual CDA, especially for lower-resource languages. Yet, the imperfections of the generated counterfactuals limit gains in model performance and robustness.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

When Skills Lie: Hidden-Comment Injection in LLM Agents

LLM agents often rely on Skills to describe available tools and recommended procedures. We study a hidden-comment prompt injection risk in this documentation layer: when a Markdown Skill is rendered to HTML, HTML comment blocks can become invisible to human reviewers, yet the raw text may still be supplied verbatim to the model. In experiments, we find that DeepSeek-V3.2 and GLM-4.5-Air can be influenced by malicious instructions embedded in a hidden comment appended to an otherwise legitimate Skill, yielding outputs that contain sensitive tool intentions. A short defensive system prompt that treats Skills as untrusted and forbids sensitive actions prevents these malicious tool calls and instead surfaces the suspicious hidden instructions.

cs.CR↗