aiqbench analysis
This paper proposes RIFT, a gradient-free way to estimate which context tokens influence a decoder-only language model's answer, by treating attention weights as conductances and computing shortest-path resistance. Its main value for AI readers is the validation: RIFT tracks the effects of actual token replacements better than attention rollout, attention flow, or token distance, while running in milliseconds. The authors also argue that aggregate flow-style scores mostly encode token position, a caveat that matters for anyone using attention-based attribution. The evidence covers two model families and extractive QA and retrieval tasks, so generalization to other settings remains open.
RIFT: Token Influence Follows the Path of Least Resistance
arXiv:2610.16349v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Which context tokens drive a language model's answer? Graph-based tools such as attention rollout and attention flow answer this from a single forward pass, yet their faithfulness in decoder-only models is rarely tested against interventions. We view the layers of a decoder as a causal network whose conductances are attention weights, and read a token's influence on the answer from the resistance between them. We propose RIFT (Resistance-based Information Flow in Transformers), which scores a token by the series resistance of its path of least resistance to the answer, found exactly by a classic shortest-path dynamic program. On synthetic in-context retrieval tasks and extractive question answering over Wikipedia paragraphs, RIFT predicts the effect of replacing a token with a Spearman correlation of 0.52-0.68; predicting a single replacement, it reaches 77-96% of the agreement between two different random replacements. It needs no gradients and no extra forward passes, scoring every token of a prompt in 0.9-3.4 ms on one CPU thread, whereas the replacement experiment needs a forward pass per token. On 576 held-out prompts from four models of two families (Qwen3 and Llama 3.2), it outperforms token distance, attention rollout and attention flow in every pre-specified comparison, by 0.23 to 0.88 in mean Spearman correlation, and it is the best or tied-best of all attention-based scores we test. Aggregates that add up all routes (attention flow, effective resistance and rollout) instead mostly encode token position: as a simple proposition shows, early tokens have many more parallel routes to the answer.
Abstract:Which context tokens drive a language model's answer? Graph-based tools such as attention rollout and attention flow answer this from a single forward pass, yet their faithfulness in decoder-only models is rarely tested against interventions. We view the layers of a decoder as a causal network whose conductances are attention weights, and read a token's influence on the answer from the resistance between them. We propose RIFT (Resistance-based Information Flow in Transformers), which scores a token by the series resistance of its path of least resistance to the answer, found exactly by a classic shortest-path dynamic program. On synthetic in-context retrieval tasks and extractive question answering over Wikipedia paragraphs, RIFT predicts the effect of replacing a token with a Spearman correlation of 0.52-0.68; predicting a single replacement, it reaches 77-96% of the agreement between two different random replacements. It needs no gradients and no extra forward passes, scoring every token of a prompt in 0.9-3.4 ms on one CPU thread, whereas the replacement experiment needs a forward pass per token. On 576 held-out prompts from four models of two families (Qwen3 and Llama 3.2), it outperforms token distance, attention rollout and attention flow in every pre-specified comparison, by 0.23 to 0.88 in mean Spearman correlation, and it is the best or tied-best of all attention-based scores we test. Aggregates that add up all routes (attention flow, effective resistance and rollout) instead mostly encode token position: as a simple proposition shows, early tokens have many more parallel routes to the answer.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.16349 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.16349v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.16349 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 348 words
Related coverage

Four Ways to Deploy More Secure AI Agents
NVIDIA · Jul 30, 2026

The art and science of hyperparameter optimization on Amazon Nova Forge
AWS · Jun 2, 2026

The basic argument for making AI better at moral philosophy
LessWrong · Oct 14, 2026

It’s about ethics in journalism, with Ben Smith
The Verge · Aug 17, 2026