Interpreting and understanding the predictions made by deep learning models poses a formidable challenge due to their inherently opaque nature. Many previous efforts aimed at explaining these predictions rely on input features, specifically, the words within NLP models. However, such explanations are often less informative due to the discrete nature of these words and their lack of contextual verbosity. To address this limitation, we introduce the Latent Concept Attribution method (LACOAT), which generates explanations for predictions based on latent concepts. Our foundational intuition is that a word can exhibit multiple facets, contingent upon the context in which it is used. Therefore, given a word in context, the latent space derived from our training process reflects a specific facet of that word. LACOAT functions by mapping the representations of salient input words into the training latent space, allowing it to provide latent context-based explanations of the prediction.

Evaluations of model editing, a technique for changing the factual knowledge held by Large Language Models (LLMs), currently only use the ‘next few token’ completions after a prompt. As a result, the impact of these methods on longer natural language generation is largely unknown. We introduce long-form evaluation of model editing (LEME) a novel evaluation protocol that measures the efficacy and impact of model editing in long-form generative settings. Our protocol consists of a machine-rated survey and a classifier which correlates well with human ratings. Importantly, we find that our protocol has very little relationship with previous short-form metrics (despite being designed to extend efficacy, generalization, locality, and portability into a long-form setting), indicating that our method introduces a novel set of dimensions for understanding model editing methods. Using this protocol, we benchmark a number of model editing techniques and present several findings including that, while some methods (ROME and MEMIT) perform well in making consistent edits within a limited scope, they suffer much more from factual drift than other methods. Finally, we present a qualitative analysis that illustrates common failure modes in long-form generative settings including internal consistency, lexical cohesion, and locality issues.