Explainability and Interpretability in Modern LLMs

Browse all previoiusly published AI Tutorials here.

Table of Contents

• 🔍 Saliency-Based Explanations in Transformers

• 📜 Rule Extraction and Surrogate Models

• 🔗 Attribution and Training Data Influence

• 🕵️ Probing Internal Representations

• 📊 Interpretability Tooling & Visualizations

• ⚖️ Explainability in Compliance and Auditing
  

---

🔍 Saliency-Based Explanations in Transformers

Saliency methods highlight which input tokens or features most affect an LLM’s output. A basic approach is to use gradient-based saliency: take the gradient of the output score with respect to each input token embedding (or its one-hot representation) and use the magnitude as an importance score (Cracking the Code: LLM Interpretability and Its Role in Trustworthy AI | by Hidevs Community | Medium), This gives a quick “heatmap” over input text, but raw gradients in deep transformers can be noisy or suffer from saturation problems (Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): from inherent explainability to large language models), To tackle this, Integrated Gradients (IG) accumulate gradients along a path from a neutral baseline (like an empty input) to the actual input, IG is popular for attributing model predictions to input features in NLP, as it satisfies desirable axioms and mitigates gradient saturation by integrating , However, applying IG to large autoregressive LMs isn’t trivial – recent work in 2024 noted problems like exploding gradients and the method’s failure to account for the Transformer's attention mechanism. One solution introduced is to augment IG with attention-based weighting: by incorporating each token’s attention contribution and an “emphasis factor” to dampen exploding gradients, researchers achieved more precise word-level attribution in text generation (Enhancing Integrated Gradients Using Emphasis Factors and Attention for Effective Explainability of Large Language Models | OpenReview), This enhanced IG variant explicitly propagates importance through the Transformer’s attention layers, aligning better with how LLMs actually combine context.

Another family of saliency techniques leverages the model’s attention weights. In transformer architectures, attention scores indicate how much each token attends to others. Attention visualization tools (like BertViz) plot these attention patterns to show which words a model focuses on (Day 45: Interpretability Techniques for LLMs - DEV Community), By examining multi-head attention across layers, one can sometimes trace how information flows: for example, an attention head might consistently attend from pronouns to their antecedents, or from a “why” question to an explanatory phrase, revealing some of the model’s internal logic. Going further, attention rollout aggregates attention scores across all layers to compute an overall influence score for each input token (Exploring Explainability Techniques for Vision Transformers - Medium), The idea is to recursively multiply attention matrices layer-by-layer so we can “roll out” the contribution of each original token to the final output. In practice, attention-based maps need careful interpretation – not all important causal features will have high raw attention weight, and some attention heads may be doing positional or routing functions. Nonetheless, visualizing these patterns can illuminate which parts of the prompt or context the LLM deemed relevant for its output.

Modern LLM explainability toolkits combine gradients with attention to get more faithful saliency maps. For instance, Layer-wise Relevance Propagation (LRP) has been adapted to transformers: LRP starts at the output and propagates “relevance” backwards through the network’s layers, dividing the prediction score among input tokens in a manner that respects the model’s internal structure. This can be done by distributing the score along attention links and feedforward paths layer by layer (Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI): from inherent explainability to large language models), The result is a decomposition of the final prediction into contributions of each token. These approaches handle the intertwined nonlinear interactions in LLMs better than naive gradients.

In practical use, engineers often generate token-level saliency highlights for LLM outputs. For example, given a long text summary from a model, a saliency algorithm might underline which sentences in the source text had the most impact on each sentence of the summary. Frameworks like Captum (PyTorch) and TensorFlow’s explainability modules provide implementations: Captum’s latest version (2024) added specialized support for transformer models, including gradient x activation for each layer and even methods to attribute importance to key/value states in the attention mechanism (Releases · pytorch/captum · GitHub), These advances allow attribution not just to input tokens but to intermediate representations, acknowledging that certain hidden-layer features (e.g. a particular neuron or attention head) can have outsized influence on the final result.

Importantly, saliency explanations are local (instance-level): they explain one particular prediction. They are invaluable for debugging – e.g. discovering that a medical-report summarizer LLM latched onto an irrelevant phrase – and for building user trust by pointing to which words mattered. However, saliency maps alone don’t reveal why those correlations exist or what the model internally “understood” about the input. That’s why we complement them with higher-level interpretability techniques below.

📜 Rule Extraction and Surrogate Models

While saliency methods yield local explanations, rule extraction aims for global understanding of an LLM’s decision logic. The idea is to approximate the complex model with simpler, human-interpretable rules or models. One approach is training a surrogate model (often a decision tree or rule-based classifier) on the LLM’s inputs and outputs. For instance, suppose we have an LLM that flags legal documents as compliant or non-compliant. We can feed it many examples, collect the LLM’s binary decisions, and then train a decision tree to predict the LLM’s outputs from the inputs. The decision tree can serve as a surrogate that mimics the LLM on those examples, but is transparent (we can inspect its splits and logic (From large language models to small logic programs: building global explanations from disagreeing local post-hoc explainers | Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems), Recent research in 2024 introduced a framework called GELPE (Global Explanations from Local Post-hoc Explainers) which does this in a sophisticated way. In GELPE, one first runs a local explainer (like SHAP, LIME, or a saliency method) on many samples to identify the most important features (words or concepts) for the LLM’s predictions. Then a CART decision tree is trained on those important features to replicate the LLM’s behavior, and finally the tree is converted into a set of logical if-then rules. This yields a concise rule-based description of the LLM’s overall decision policy. _image Figure: A workflow for extracting global logic from an LLM (GELPE framework). A local explainer (LIME, SHAP, LRP, etc.) finds important tokens (“lemmas” like hate, enemy, love, you). A decision tree (CART) is fit to the LLM’s predictions using only those features, then distilled into a logic program (rules shown on right) that approximates the LLM’s classification behavior.

Such surrogate models allow auditing the global decision criteria of a large LLM , In the example illustrated above, the extracted rules might reveal that the LLM’s “harmful content” detector essentially looks for the conjunction of second-person pronouns with violence words (“you” AND “kill” → harmful) and for positive words with “you” (“love” AND “you” → not harmful). Those rules are far simpler than the full transformer, but if they predict the LLM’s outputs with high fidelity, they provide a valuable window into what the LLM effectively implements. 2025 studies have shown that these surrogate logic programs can achieve high fidelity to the original model on classification tasks, while remaining **comprehensible and concise, This is a promising direction for verifying LLMs in safety-critical applications: a bank could extract a set of rules approximating a loan approval LLM to ensure they align with lending regulations, for example.

Another category is rule extraction via model inspection. Instead of training a separate surrogate, researchers directly search within the LLM for symbolic structure. One technique is to probe for implicit finite-state automata or grammar rules that the LLM might be following in certain tasks. For instance, if an LLM is used as a conversational agent with turn-taking, one might extract a state-transition diagram of its dialogue policy by analyzing its responses to various inputs. Similarly, for an LLM that does chain-of-thought reasoning, we could attempt to derive a set of logical inference rules that describe its behavior (e.g., “if the question asks for X and it knows Y, then it will do Z”). Some 2024 experiments have managed to induce small logic programs from LLMs by treating the LLM as an oracle and seeing how it responds to strategically chosen inputs, These logic programs serve as a hypothesis about the model’s reasoning which can then be validated or refined.

It’s worth noting that surrogate modeling faces the challenge of fidelity vs. interpretability. A very simple surrogate (like a depth-3 decision tree) may be easy to interpret but fails to match the LLM decisions on many edge cases, whereas a more complex surrogate (depth-10 tree or a rule set with dozens of clauses) might approach the LLM’s accuracy but become too cumbersome to mentally parse. Techniques like GELPE address this by focusing the surrogate on the most influential features for the LLM, which keeps the extracted rules relatively sparse and high-level (and domain-specific stopwords or minor tokens are ignored). The evaluation of such methods in 2025 emphasizes checking that the surrogate’s logic is faithful to the LLM (often measured by agreement on a test set) and is itself human-understandable. When successful, rule extraction gives organizations a way to document an LLM’s decision procedure in plain language or simple formulas – a crucial capability for governance and compliance.

🔗 Attribution and Training Data Influence

Attribution techniques extend the idea of “which input caused this?” beyond just the immediate input features. In complex LLM deployments, we often need to ask: Which part of the input, or which training example, or which component of the model is responsible for a given output or behavior? Recent developments in 2024–2025 have improved our ability to trace model outputs back to both inputs and training data.

On the input side, aside from saliency maps described earlier, model-agnostic attribution methods like LIME and SHAP remain popular for explaining LLM outputs in an intuitive way. SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) assigns each input token a score representing its contribution to the output, based on the Shapley value concept from game theory (Cracking the Code: LLM Interpretability and Its Role in Trustworthy AI | by Hidevs Community | Medium), This involves considering various “coalitions” of tokens: roughly, how does the prediction change when we include or exclude a particular token (averaging over many combinations)? The result is an importance ranking of words or features that can be more theoretically grounded than simple gradients. SHAP is computationally heavy for long text and LLMs, but 2024 implementations and sampling tricks have made it feasible to use on smaller language models or specific subsequences. LIME (Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations) is another technique where we perturb the input (e.g., mask out some words) and train a small linear model to predict the LLM’s output from these perturbed inputs. The linear model’s coefficients then tell us which words strongly influence the output. Both SHAP and LIME have been recommended as part of an explainability toolkit for GenAI in high-stakes settings – for example, to explain why an LLM medical assistant gave a certain recommendation, by pointing out which symptoms or keywords in the prompt had the largest impact (LLMs in Regulatory Affairs:. Ensuring Transparency and Trust in… | by Rupeshit Patekar | Medium),

Beyond input features, training data attribution has seen breakthroughs in 2024. LLMs are trained on massive corpora, and when they generate a certain answer or exhibit a behavior, it’s natural to wonder which training examples contributed to that? Classic influence estimation techniques from ML (like Koh & Liang’s Influence Functions) have been scaled up to LLMs. Influence functions conceptually approximate the effect of removing a particular training point on the model’s prediction (Scalable Influence and Fact Tracing for Large Language Model Pretraining) , Directly computing that in an LLM is intractable, but methods like TracIn (Pruthi et al.) use a simpler first-order approximation: they compute, for a given test input/output, a similarity between the test input’s gradients and each training sample’s gradients to rank training examples by influence. In 2023, Grosse et al. applied such influence methods to a 6B-parameter model (Scalable Influence and Fact Tracing for Large Language Model Pretraining), and in 2024 this line of work exploded. Researchers introduced improved, scalable pipelines (e.g. TrackStar) that leverage efficient gradient similarity search to find influential training examples for any given LLM output across billions of training examples (Scaling Training Data Attribution | People + AI Research Blog) , TrackStar and similar techniques combine tricks like approximate second-order updates, random projection indexing, and heuristic filtering to make it practical to search the entire pretraining corpus for evidence relevant to a query (Scaling Training Data Attribution | People + AI Research Blog), Remarkably, using an 8B parameter model, TrackStar was able to retrieve influencing documents out of a 160-billion-token corpus for thousands of different queries (Scalable Influence and Fact Tracing for Large Language Model Pretraining),

One fascinating finding from these studies is that the most influential training data is not always the most obvious. For example, if an LLM correctly states a factual claim (“San Diego is in California”), one might expect the top influencing training examples to be sentences that state that fact. Instead, attribution experiments showed that sometimes indirect data had more influence – e.g. a passage talking about San Diego’s weather and mentioning California context (Scalable Influence and Fact Tracing for Large Language Model Pretraining), This indicates LLMs often learn facts in a distributed way: they might internalize hints from many places rather than a single explicit statement. As model sizes and data scales increase, the gap between attribution (finding text that states the fact) and influence (text that caused the model to learn it) starts to widen (Scalable Influence and Fact Tracing for Large Language Model Pretraining), In other words, very large models tend to have influential training examples that more directly overlap with the query content, whereas smaller ones rely on more indirect data sources (Scalable Influence and Fact Tracing for Large Language Model Pretraining), Knowing this helps with debugging and auditing LLM knowledge. If a model says something problematic, influence tracing can pinpoint the likely source training data that led to that output. This has been demonstrated in data contamination studies and even used for data cleansing: by identifying and removing or downweighting toxic training examples that strongly influence toxic outputs, one can mitigate certain bad behaviors. Major AI labs are incorporating these influence analysis tools internally to better understand their models’ generalization. Gradient-based influence methods like TracIn, TRAK, and LoRA-based influence are all seeing active development and are being integrated into interpretability libraries (Scalable Influence and Fact Tracing for Large Language Model Pretraining), In fact, the open-source Captum library added new influence function implementations in 2024, including faster Hessian-vector products to scale up classic influence computations on large models (Releases · pytorch/captum · GitHub),

A related concept is Representer Point methods, which offer another way to attribute predictions to training data. The Representer Point approach (originally from 2018) uses the kernel representer theorem to express a model’s prediction as a weighted sum of embeddings of training examples ( Evolving Interpretable Visual Classifiers with Large Language Models), In practice, one computes for a given test input the nearest training examples in the model’s latent space (e.g. last hidden layer) and uses their labels weighted by similarity to explain the prediction. While representer methods have not been as widely applied to gigantic LLMs (due to computational cost), 2024 survey literature still includes them as a promising technique for post-hoc explanation (Explainability for Large Language Models: A Survey), They could be especially useful in domains like legal or medical LMs, where you might want to say “this diagnosis was most strongly influenced by these five past cases in the training data.” Some preliminary work has fused representer ideas with TracIn, essentially using the representer weights to guide which training examples to consider in influence score calculation ( Enhancing Training Data Attribution for Large Language Models ...),

Attribution to intermediate model components is another frontier. Instead of blaming an input token or a training datum, we might ask: which internal neuron or layer “caused” this outcome? At a coarse level, logit attribution analysis (also called direct logit attribution) breaks down the final prediction score by tracing back through the network’s layers. For example, in a transformer, one can attribute the final logits to contributions from each layer’s output using techniques akin to layer-wise relevance. The LM Transparency Tool (discussed later) implements a form of this, letting users inspect how much each attention head or MLP neuron added or subtracted from a token's likelihood (The LM Transparency Tool: Explaining the Full Forward Pass | ACL Anthology), This helps identify things like “the weird prediction was caused largely by neuron X in layer 20 activating on the word budget.” Such knowledge can hint at concepts that neuron might be encoding, or suggest targeted interventions (like pruning or re-training that component).

Overall, attribution techniques in 2024–2025 provide multi-faceted explainability: from input token importance (saliency maps, SHAP), to training data influence traces (TracIn, influence functions), to component-wise credit assignment inside the model. When combined, these give a powerful toolkit for understanding and debugging LLMs. For example, if an LLM in a financial application gives an odd recommendation, one can highlight which words in the prompt led to it (input attribution), check which training documents were most responsible for that behavior (training influence), and even see which part of the network flared up to produce that output (internal attribution). Such comprehensive tracing was largely infeasible at the start of the decade, but has rapidly become a reality for modern LLMs.

🕵️ Probing Internal Representations

LLMs learn intricate internal representations of language – but what do those vectors actually encode? Probing techniques try to decode the hidden states of a model to reveal the linguistic or semantic features captured within. In 2024, probing remains a key method to interpret LLMs, now applied not just to moderate models like BERT but to giant models and even interactive probing of running LLMs.

A classic probing setup is: take the frozen LLM and for each layer, extract the hidden state vectors for many inputs annotated with some linguistic property (e.g. part-of-speech tags, syntactic tree depth, factual knowledge questions). Then train a simple classifier (the “probe”) on the hidden states to predict that property. If the probe succeeds, it implies that layer’s representation contains information about that property. Using this approach, researchers have mapped out where in a model various information lives. For example, in a large translation model, lower layers might encode syntax (word order, POS) while higher layers encode semantic meaning and context. In recent work, probes have been used to discover whether LLMs have factual knowledge entangled in certain dimensions of the hidden state. A 2024 study introduced KEEN (Knowledge Extraction from internals), which trains a probe on an LLM’s penultimate layer to estimate the model’s confidence about a factual question **without actually generating an output ( Interpretability & Analysis of LMs - a gsarti Collection), Intriguingly, KEEN could predict when the model would hedge or hallucinate, by reading the model’s “mind” (activations) instead of its final output ( Interpretability & Analysis of LMs - a gsarti Collection), This opens up the possibility of silent model auditing: gauging what the model would say or whether it knows it might be wrong, by inspecting its internal activations.

Neuron-level analysis has made significant strides. In May 2024, Anthropic researchers demonstrated that even in large models, you can find sets of neurons whose joint activation corresponds to intuitive concepts (On Anthropic breakthrough paper on Interpretability of LLMs May 2024 -), They mapped millions of neuron activations in a model (Claude 3-sized) and discovered human-readable “features” encoded as sparse neuron patterns. For instance, they identified a latent feature for sycophancy: a particular combination of neurons that fires when the model is catering to user preferences , By tracking those neurons, one could see when the model is in a “sycophantic mode.” This kind of mechanistic interpretability work treats the model like a brain to be reverse-engineered – finding that *concepts, entities, and even specific behaviors are represented by identifiable neuron patterns, Another 2024 work isolated “confidence neurons” in Llama-2: neurons that regulate the entropy of the output distribution (Interpretability & Analysis of LMs - a gsarti Collection), These entropy neurons had high weight norms but a subtle effect – essentially acting as knobs the model uses to say “I’m unsure, flatten the distribution” or conversely boost confident tokens (Interpretability & Analysis of LMs - a gsarti Collection), Alongside, they found “frequency neurons” which seem to inject a bias for more common words in absence of strong context (Interpretability & Analysis of LMs - a gsarti Collection), By ablating or modifying these neurons, one can calibrate the model’s uncertainty and verbosity. Such findings are incredibly useful for explaining why a model might prefer a generic answer: it could be an overactive frequency neuron, for example, which a developer can address by fine-tuning or architectural changes.

Another line of interpretability is the use of Concept Activation Vectors (CAVs) inside LLMs. CAVs, introduced earlier for vision models, have been adapted to language. The idea is to define a vector in the model’s latent space that corresponds to a human-understandable concept (Cracking the Code: LLM Interpretability and Its Role in Trustworthy AI | by Hidevs Community | Medium), For example, we might collect a set of sentences that all pertain to the concept of “legal contract” and another set of random sentences. By averaging differences in their activations, one can derive a direction in the embedding space that represents “contract-ness.” Once you have a CAV, you can measure how strongly that concept is present in any given activation (by projecting onto the CAV). This has been used to test which concepts a model is using internally at a given time. In 2025, researchers applied CAVs to safety and bias analysis: defining a “toxicity” concept vector and then checking how much that component appears in intermediate layers when an LLM processes various inputs (Controlling Large Language Models Through Concept Activation Vectors), Interestingly, concept vectors can also be used interventively: a method called Activation Steering inserts or removes certain concept vectors during the forward pass to control generation (Controlling Large Language Models Through Concept Activation Vectors), For instance, removing the toxicity CAV from the activations at each step can reduce toxic content in the output without fine-tuning the model (Controlling Large Language Models Through Concept Activation Vectors), This both demonstrates that the model had a detectable “toxicity feature” internally, and gives a tool to mitigate it. Likewise, adding a style concept vector (say “ Shakespearean style”) to each layer’s activations can bias the model to generate in that style. These methods show that a surprisingly linear structure exists in the high-dimensional latent spaces of LLMs: many high-level attributes and concepts are associated with specific directions that we can interpret and manipulate.

Intermediate representation tracking is now often built into LLM development workflows. Engineers set up probes or monitors on certain layers to watch for the emergence of known signals. For example, one can track an “entity representation” vector across the model’s layers to see when the model resolves coreference or encodes factual info about that entity. If an entity’s representation suddenly shifts in later layers, it might indicate the model is using that entity in a different context or has recalled a related fact. Probing of decoder-states using logit lenses (projecting a hidden state to the vocabulary space to see what token distribution it’s leaning towards (The LM Transparency Tool: Explaining the Full Forward Pass | ACL Anthology)-) is another popular trick: by decoding each layer’s hidden state, we can often guess partial outputs, revealing how the model’s answer is forming step by step. In 2024, logit lens experiments on large chat models showed that early layers produce very broad distributions (basically the prompt prior), and around the middle layers the model “decides” on an answer (the distribution peaks on a specific completion), then later layers refine it without changing the top prediction. This informs us when the critical computation happens inside the model.

Large-scale studies are also probing for emergent abilities. A 2024 comprehensive survey ( Interpretability & Analysis of LMs - a gsarti Collection)- noted that interpretability research is moving from just describing model internals to actively connecting insights to model behavior. By knowing, for example, that a certain neuron or subnetwork corresponds to a grammar rule, we can hypothesize how to fix model errors related to that rule. There’s a growing effort to unify these probing insights into mechanistic explanations – essentially reverse-engineering entire subsystems of an LLM (such as the algorithm it uses to do arithmetic or logical reasoning). While full transparency is far from achieved, the combination of neuron analyses, concept vectors, and layer probing has started to crack open black boxes that were impenetrable only a couple of years ago. For practitioners, even simple probing tools like SentEval (for linguistic features) or LAMA (for factual knowledge) are useful to *benchmark which information is in which layer (Day 45: Interpretability Techniques for LLMs - DEV Community)-, guiding them on where to intervene or which representations to extract for downstream use.

📊 Interpretability Tooling & Visualizations (2024–2025)

The rapid progress in explainability has been accompanied by the release of new tools and libraries that make these techniques accessible. A highlight of 2024 was the introduction of the LM Transparency Tool (LM-TT) by Meta researchers (The LM Transparency Tool: Explaining the Full Forward Pass | ACL Anthology), LM-TT is an open-source interactive toolkit that can trace the full forward pass of a transformer and attribute outputs to internal components. Unlike earlier tools that focused on one aspect (say, just attention patterns or just neuron activations), LM-TT aims for end-to-end traceability (The LM Transparency Tool: Explaining the Full Forward Pass | ACL Anthology), It provides a visual interface where a user can select a particular output token of the LLM and see an “information flow graph”: essentially a pipeline showing how the representation evolved from the input through each layer, highlighting which attention heads and feed-forward neurons made the biggest changes at each step (The LM Transparency Tool: Explaining the Full Forward Pass | ACL Anthology), By clicking on a neuron or head, you can see what that component does (for example, the tool might show the top text patterns that maximally activate that neuron, as a clue to its function). LM-TT also implements logit lens and causal decomposition: you can remove or intervene on components in the interface and see how the model’s prediction changes, all in real-time. This kind of interactive circuit analysis was a research novelty in 2022, but by late 2024 it’s packaged in a user-friendly tool (The LM Transparency Tool: Explaining the Full Forward Pass | ACL Anthology), Such tools greatly aid researchers and engineers to conduct “what-if” analyses on large models without writing custom code for each experiment.

Mainstream frameworks have also upped their game. PyTorch’s Captum library, which has long provided implementations of saliency and attribution methods, released version 0.7 with explicit support for LLM interpretability. This includes optimized routines to handle long text sequences and attention layers. For example, Captum now supports layer-wise attributions in transformers (so you can ask “which token was most important according to layer 5’s view?”) and can incorporate attention masking to do head-specific attribution (Releases · pytorch/captum · GitHub), It even offers dataset-level attribution features: e.g., computing the aggregate importance of a given word across an entire dataset of model decisions (useful for discovering if a model has a bias toward a certain term). On the TensorFlow/Keras side, we see similar moves – Keras’ explainability toolkit integrated with TF 2.x has recipes for text models, like using integrated gradients on an embedding layer and visualizing the results in notebook widgets. There’s also AllenNLP Interpret and others which were extended to support Transformer-based text classifiers, though with LLMs many of these require adapting to generation tasks rather than simple classification.

The Hugging Face ecosystem hosts a variety of interpretability integrations. For instance, experiments and demos from papers often end up as HuggingFace Spaces (apps) where one can try a visualization on the fly. The gsarti/interpretability-and-analysis-of-lms collection ( Interpretability & Analysis of LMs - a gsarti Collection) - lists dozens of 2024 papers and their associated code or demos. One notable example from that list: MIRAGE, a tool for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) explainability. MIRAGE matches parts of an LLM’s answer to specific passages in the retrieved documents using the model’s internal attention and saliency ( Interpretability & Analysis of LMs - a gsarti Collection), The goal is to produce faithful citations: rather than just showing the top similar document, it actually checks which document phrases the model used for each segment of its answer, via a saliency-based approach ( Interpretability & Analysis of LMs - a gsarti Collection), This was released with a neat interface where you input a question, the model generates an answer with highlighted phrases, and each highlight is linked to a source document snippet – all computed using the model’s own internals (attention heads that focus on the retrievals) instead of treating the model as a black box. This kind of context attribution is crucial for trust in systems like Bing Chat or Bard, ensuring that every claim the LLM makes can be traced to a source it actually looked at.

For visualization, common tools from earlier years are still in use: BertViz (now extended to handle GPT-2/GPT-3 style models) for attention head visualizations, and UMAP or PCA plots for embedding spaces. In 2024, we also saw more use of Activation Atlases for language models – plotting neurons in 2D to see clusters of neurons with similar roles. There are even browser-based “neuron viewers” where you can select a neuron index and instantly see textual sequences that highly activate it (based on cached data). OpenAI did not publicly release an interface, but they have shared insights from an internal tool that surfaces the top texts that activate each GPT-4 neuron, which helped them discover neurons corresponding to things like HTML formatting, Python code style, etc., within the giant model.

On the research side, mechanistic interpretability challenges have led to open-source tooling too. The Neuroscope project, for example, provides a public interface to browse neurons of GPT-2 and see what they respond to. And TransformerLens (previously known as Neel Nanda’s transformer internals library) continues to be widely used for hooking into models at any layer and running causal interventions (like the Activation Patch technique, where you replace a segment of one model’s activations with another’s to see outcome differences). TransformerLens is especially popular in the community focusing on “circuits” in models – it provides easy APIs to iteratively refine hypotheses about which heads/MLPs form a circuit for a given behavior.

In summary, the 2024–2025 period has turned many interpretability techniques into practical, even real-time tools. This means that it’s no longer necessary to be a research specialist to do things like attribution or probing; a developer can use libraries (Captum, Hugging Face Transformers integration, etc.) to get explanations for model outputs with a few lines of code. Moreover, visualization dashboards and UIs are making it feasible to include interpretability in the model development loop – much like one uses a debugger to step through code, you can step through an LLM’s layers and see what’s going on. We expect these tools to keep improving, potentially integrating with common IDEs or model serving platforms so that any time an LLM produces an output, an explanation is right alongside it.

⚖️ Explainability in Compliance and Auditing

As large language models move into high-stakes domains like healthcare, finance, and law, regulators and internal governance teams are demanding interpretability. Black-box models are often unacceptable in these fields due to requirements for transparency, fairness, and accountability. In 2024 and 2025, we see interpretability tools being woven into the model audit and compliance pipelines to address these concerns.

One major driver is the upcoming EU AI Act, which will enforce transparency obligations on AI systems, especially those used in high-risk scenarios. Companies preparing for these regulations are already ensuring their LLM deployments can generate meaningful explanations on demand. For example, a fintech deploying an LLM to help assess loan eligibility must be able to explain each decision in terms of factors considered – even if the LLM is just writing a recommendation, the final decision system might use SHAP or LIME to provide the top contributing factors to the recommendation (LLMs in Regulatory Affairs:. Ensuring Transparency and Trust in… | by Rupeshit Patekar | Medium) , In the US, banking regulators (OCC, Federal Reserve) have reiterated that model risk management principles (SR 11-7 and related guidelines) apply to AI models: banks need to understand why a model made a prediction, not just whether it’s accurate. This has led to a trend where banks maintain two versions of a solution: a powerful LLM for performance and an interpretable shadow model for verification. Increasingly, however, with techniques like surrogate decision trees or rule extraction, they can derive explanations directly from the LLM and present those during model validation. An article in April 2024 noted that banking risk managers are grappling with the “inability to explain how AI works” as the top concern, even more so than cyber-security or data privacy (Explainability Challenges Are a Growing Concern for Bank Governance of AI ) , In response, banks are building explainability dashboards: when an LLM-driven credit model processes an application, it not only outputs a credit risk score but also generates an explanation report (e.g. “Key factors: high income (positive), short credit history (negative), no delinquencies (positive)”). These reports are stored for auditors and can be reviewed if a decision is contested, aligning with fair lending laws that require lenders to provide reasons for adverse actions.

In healthcare, explainability is equally paramount. Doctors and hospital administrators are understandably wary of recommendations from an opaque AI. To deploy an LLM that suggests treatments or diagnoses, one must build trust through transparency. This means when the LLM outputs, say, a diagnosis, it should also output an explanation or highlight the evidence. Many implementations use retrieval-augmented LLMs for this reason: the model is forced to cite medical literature or guidelines, and those citations are shown to the user as justification. Even beyond citing sources, tools like saliency maps can be applied to medical text analysis. If an LLM summarizes a patient’s case and makes a recommendation, an attached saliency visualization can show which symptoms or lab results in the input the model focused on. If those aren’t the medically relevant ones, a physician will know the model might be off-base. Regulatory-wise, the FDA’s emerging framework for AI in medical devices emphasizes “transparent algorithms” – while not mandating full interpretability yet, the direction is clear that any clinical AI should be accompanied by evidence of its reasoning. Thus, companies are using interpretability not just post-hoc, but also during development to ensure their models learn the right patterns (for example, verifying that a radiology-report LLM’s attention aligns with the actual radiologist notes and not spurious text).

In the legal domain, there have been cautionary tales underscoring the need for explainability. One infamous incident involved lawyers using an LLM (ChatGPT) to write a brief that unknowingly cited fictitious cases (hallucinations) (AI guardrails for highly regulated industries | SAP), A robust explainability pipeline could have caught this: if the LLM had been required to show the source of each cited case (via retrieval or a knowledge database), the fake citations would have been apparent. Now, law firms experimenting with LLMs insist on source-attributed generation – essentially, every statement an LLM makes (especially factual or precedential ones) should be traceable to a trusted document. Some have even integrated truthfulness validators: models that check whether an LLM’s answer is supported by provided documents, and if not, flag it. For audit, law firms log not just the LLM’s outputs but the chain of thought if available (in a prompt-based system, the model’s reasoning steps can be captured) and any explanations. These logs form an audit trail that can be reviewed in case of an error or complaint, which is crucial for legal accountability. Also, regulatory bodies like the EU’s proposed AI Act or sectoral guidelines may eventually require that AI decisions affecting individuals’ rights come with an explanation. In anticipation, we see companies building explanation generators around LLMs: basically, a wrapper that takes an LLM output and produces a plain-language explanation of it. In some cases, the LLM itself can be prompted to explain its answer (with a prompt like “Explain the reasoning step by step”); however, these self-explanations may not always be reliable or faithful. Thus, many opt for post-hoc methods (attribution, local surrogate rules) to produce explanations that are more objectively grounded in the model’s mechanics.

From an MLOps perspective, explainability is becoming a standard part of the deployment pipeline. Monitoring systems now often include bias and explanation monitoring. For example, a bank might continuously monitor the feature attributions for their loan recommendation LLM – if suddenly “zip code” (a proxy for location) becomes a top factor, that could indicate a drift or emerging bias that requires intervention (as it could lead to discriminatory outcomes). Explainability tools are also used in model tuning and debugging cycles: if an LLM fine-tune shows unexpected behavior on some test cases, developers will inspect attention weights or saliency maps for those cases to understand what the model is keying off. They might find, for instance, that the model paid attention to an annotation artifact in the fine-tuning data, and thus adjust the training process or dataset.

Finally, compliance often involves documentation. Model cards and audit reports in 2025 now include sections on explainability: detailing what techniques were used to interpret the model, and presenting example explanations. High-stakes models might even come with an explanation interface for end-users – e.g., an interface for a clinician to ask “Why did the model say this?” and get either a highlighted input or a rule-based summary. This is facilitated by the advancements we’ve discussed: because the technology to generate explanations is available, regulators will expect it to be used. As one Medium commentary succinctly put it, *“LLM-driven healthcare applications require transparency and explainability. The opaque nature of LLMs makes it challenging to trust them in critical decision making (LLMs in Regulatory Affairs:. Ensuring Transparency and Trust in… | by Rupeshit Patekar | Medium) , The solution is straightforward: apply XAI techniques (like LIME, SHAP, and others) to provide interpretable explanations for every prediction (LLMs in Regulatory Affairs:. Ensuring Transparency and Trust in… | by Rupeshit Patekar | Medium) -, and accompany the deployment with thorough documentation and user-centric explanations (LLMs in Regulatory Affairs:. Ensuring Transparency and Trust in… | by Rupeshit Patekar | Medium) ,

In conclusion, explainability in modern LLMs has evolved from a research afterthought to a practical necessity. Techniques such as saliency mapping, rule extraction, probing, and influence tracing – especially the new developments from 2024–2025 – empower us to peek inside the black box and extract human-comprehensible insights. These methods are not just academic; they are being actively integrated into production systems to build safer, more transparent AI. An LLM that can explain itself (or be explained with tools) is inherently more trustworthy and easier to manage. As we deploy LLMs in ever more critical roles, the toolsets described here will be as important as the models themselves in ensuring we maintain control, understanding, and accountability for these powerful AI systems.

Sources: The information and techniques discussed are drawn from the latest research and tools in 2024–2025, including open-source releases and studies on LLM interpretability (Enhancing Integrated Gradients Using Emphasis Factors and Attention for Effective Explainability of Large Language Models | OpenReview) -, as cited throughout the text.