LLMs, while outperforming humans in a wide range of tasks, can still fail in unanticipated ways. We focus on two pervasive failure modes: (i) hallucinations, where models produce incorrect information about the world, and (ii) the low-resource effect, where the models show impressive performance in high-resource languages like English but the performance degrades significantly in low-resource languages like Bengali. We study the intersection of these issues and ask: do hallucination detectors suffer from the low-resource effect? We conduct experiments on five tasks across three domains (factual recall, STEM, and Humanities). Experiments with four LLMs and three hallucination detectors reveal a curious finding: As expected, the task accuracies in low-resource languages experience large drops (compared to English). However, the drop in detectors’ accuracy is often several times smaller than the drop in task accuracy. Our findings suggest that even in low-resource languages, the internal mechanisms of LLMs might encode signals about their uncertainty. Further, the detectors are robust within language (even for non-English) and in multilingual setups, but not in cross-lingual settings without in-language supervision.

Explanations are an important tool for gaining insights into model behavior, calibrating user trust, and ensuring compliance.Past few years have seen a flurry of methods for generating explanations, many of which involve computing model gradients or solving specially designed optimization problems.Owing to the remarkable reasoning abilities of LLMs, *self-explanation*, i.e., prompting the model to explain its outputs has recently emerged as a new paradigm.We study a specific type of self-explanations, *self-generated counterfactual explanations* (SCEs).We test LLMs’ ability to generate SCEs across families, sizes, temperatures, and datasets. We find that LLMs sometimes struggle to generate SCEs. When they do, their prediction often does not agree with their own counterfactual reasoning.

Last few years have seen unprecedented advances in capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). These advancements promise to benefit a vast array of application domains. However, due to their immense size, performing inference with LLMs is both costly and slow. Consequently, a plethora of recent work has proposed strategies to enhance inference efficiency, e.g., quantization, pruning, and caching. These acceleration strategies reduce the inference cost and latency, often by several factors, while maintaining much of the predictive performance measured via common benchmarks. In this work, we explore another critical aspect of LLM performance: demographic bias in model generations due to inference acceleration optimizations. Using a wide range of metrics, we probe bias in model outputs from a number of angles. Analysis of outputs before and after inference acceleration shows significant change in bias. Worryingly, these bias effects are complex and unpredictable. A combination of an acceleration strategy and bias type may show little bias change in one model but may lead to a large effect in another. Our results highlight a need for in-depth and case-by-case evaluation of model bias after it has been modified to accelerate inference.This paper contains prompts and outputs which may be deemed offensive.