arXiv:2607. 21090v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We propose a Reinforcement Learning (RL) method to directly optimize the faithfulness of self-explanations - the extent to which a model's generated reasoning accurately reflects its internal decision-making process.
By Yeoktatt Cheah, Mar\'ia P\'erez-Ortiz, Noah Y. Siegel, Oana-Maria Camburu
The paper investigates counterfactual self‑explanations in large language models, where a model edits an input minimally to change its own prediction. Experiments on sentiment analysis and natural language inference with ten instruction‑tuned models from the LLaMA‑3 and Qwen‑2.5 families show that larger models produce more faithful, minimal, and human‑aligned counterfactuals. While rationale‑guided prompts improve minimality and alignment, they do not consistently enhance faithfulness, indicating that explanation quality depends heavily on model capacity and requires empirical validation.
By Giannis Kalyvas, Giorgos Filandrianos, Orfeas Menis Mastromichalakis, Vassilis Lyberatos, Giorgos Stamou
The paper proposes a test‑time method to enhance the faithfulness of large language model (LLM) explanations by removing concepts not credited in the model’s explanation before re‑querying the model. This approach targets incompleteness—omissions of influential factors—rather than unsoundness, and is model‑agnostic, requiring no changes to model weights. Experiments across two datasets and multiple model families show improved faithfulness compared to standard prompting and faithfulness‑encouraging prompts.
By Qinglan Luo, S M A Nahian, John Guttag, S. Mazdak Abulnaga, Katie Matton
arXiv:2608. 16627v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Natural language explanations (NLEs) are increasingly used as inputs, for example, as few-shot rationales that influence model behavior in in-context learning (ICL).
By Mahdi Dhaini, Adam Dejl, Juraj Vladika, Volkan \"Ozer, Barbara Plank, Gjergji Kasneci
The paper discusses how Large Language Models can produce natural language self‑explanations that appear plausible but may not accurately reflect the model’s reasoning. It critiques current evaluation methods for such explanations and offers practical guidelines to assess their plausibility and faithfulness. Additionally, it argues that evaluation should also consider the actionability of these explanations, showing how they can aid decision‑making for various stakeholders.
By Elize Herrewijnen, Benedetta Muscato, Gizem Gezici, Fosca Giannotti
The paper investigates how quantization affects large language models’ self‑explanations, examining natural language explanations and counterfactual examples across three quantization techniques and bit widths. Results show moderate declines in explanation quality (up to 4.4%) and faithfulness (up to 3.9%), with user studies indicating up to an 8.5% drop in coherence and trustworthiness. Larger models are less resilient in quality but remain more faithful, and no single quantization method consistently outperforms others across accuracy, quality, and faithfulness.
By Qianli Wang, Nils Feldhus, Pepa Atanasova, Fedor Splitt, Simon Ostermann, Sebastian M\"oller, Vera Schmitt