Illocutionary Explanation Planning for Source-Faithful Explanations in Retrieval-Augmented Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.06211v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 11:10:29 GMT
• Title: Illocutionary Explanation Planning for Source-Faithful Explanations in Retrieval-Augmented Language Models
• Abstract summary: We study the extent to which an explanation's claims can be grounded in, and traced back to, an explicit source.<n>We benchmark six large language models on 90 Stack Overflow questions grounded in three programming textbooks.<n>We find that non Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) models have median source adherence of 0%, while baseline RAG systems still exhibit low median adherence (22-40%)
• Score: 6.517222960194991
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Natural language explanations produced by large language models (LLMs) are often persuasive, but not necessarily scrutable: users cannot easily verify whether the claims in an explanation are supported by evidence. In XAI, this motivates a focus on faithfulness and traceability, i.e., the extent to which an explanation's claims can be grounded in, and traced back to, an explicit source. We study these desiderata in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) for programming education, where textbooks provide authoritative evidence. We benchmark six LLMs on 90 Stack Overflow questions grounded in three programming textbooks and quantify source faithfulness via source adherence metrics. We find that non Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) models have median source adherence of 0%, while baseline RAG systems still exhibit low median adherence (22-40%, depending on the model). Motivated by Achinstein's illocutionary theory of explanation, we introduce illocutionary macro-planning as a descriptive design principle for source-faithful explanations and instantiate it with chain-of-illocution prompting (CoI), which expands a query into implicit explanatory questions that drive retrieval. Across models, CoI yields statistically significant gains (up to 63%) in source adherence, although absolute adherence remains moderate and the gains are weak or non-significant for some models. A user study with 165 retained participants (220 recruited) indicates that these gains do not harm satisfaction, relevance, or perceived correctness.

Related papers

• How Do LLMs Cite? A Mechanistic Interpretation of Attribution in Retrieval-Augmented Generation [3.4562767039451674]
  We show how a large language model decides whether to attach an inline citation while answering a factoid question.<n>We show that amplifying or attenuating only those critical heads and eliminating 69% of spurious ones on PopQA without harming answer accuracy.<n>The results reveal a potential disconnect between the model's apparent reasoning and its internal computational pathway.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-09T07:06:13Z)
• Pause or Fabricate? Training Language Models for Grounded Reasoning [50.104657152302956]
  We propose Grounded Reasoning via Interactive Reinforcement Learning (GRIL) for grounded reasoning under incomplete information.<n>GRIL decomposes the reasoning process into two stages: clarify and pause, which identifies whether the available information is sufficient, and grounded reasoning, which performs task solving once the necessary premises are established.<n>Experiments on GSM8K-Insufficient and MetaMATH-Insufficient show that GRIL significantly improves premise detection (up to 45%), leading to a 30% increase in task success while reducing average response length by over 20%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T16:45:29Z)
• Leveraging LLM Parametric Knowledge for Fact Checking without Retrieval [60.25608870901428]
  Trustworthiness is a core research challenge for agentic AI systems built on Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We propose the task of fact-checking without retrieval, focusing on the verification of arbitrary natural language claims, independent of their source robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T18:42:51Z)
• GRACE: Reinforcement Learning for Grounded Response and Abstention under Contextual Evidence [9.80421132842862]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) integrates external knowledge to enhance Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>RAG is susceptible to two critical flaws: providing correct answers without explicit grounded evidence and producing fabricated responses when the retrieved context is insufficient.<n>We propose GRACE, a reinforcement-learning framework that simultaneously mitigates both types of flaws.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T02:47:33Z)
• ReAG: Reasoning-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-based Visual Question Answering [54.72902502486611]
  ReAG is a Reasoning-Augmented Multimodal RAG approach that combines coarse- and fine-grained retrieval with a critic model that filters irrelevant passages.<n>ReAG significantly outperforms prior methods, improving answer accuracy and providing interpretable reasoning grounded in retrieved evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T19:01:02Z)
• Look As You Think: Unifying Reasoning and Visual Evidence Attribution for Verifiable Document RAG via Reinforcement Learning [55.232400251303794]
  Look As You Think (LAT) is a reinforcement learning framework that trains models to produce verifiable reasoning paths with consistent attribution.<n>LAT consistently improves the vanilla model in both single- and multi-image settings, yielding average gains of 8.23% in soft exact match (EM) and 47.0% in IoU@0.5.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-15T02:50:23Z)
• Erasing Without Remembering: Implicit Knowledge Forgetting in Large Language Models [81.62767292169225]
  We investigate knowledge forgetting in large language models with a focus on its generalisation.<n>We propose PerMU, a novel probability perturbation-based unlearning paradigm.<n>Experiments are conducted on a diverse range of datasets, including TOFU, Harry Potter, ZsRE, WMDP, and MUSE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T11:03:33Z)
• Towards Faithful Natural Language Explanations: A Study Using Activation Patching in Large Language Models [29.67884478799914]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of generating persuasive Natural Language Explanations (NLEs) to justify their answers. Recent studies have proposed various methods to measure the faithfulness of NLEs, typically by inserting perturbations at the explanation or feature level. We argue that these approaches are neither comprehensive nor correctly designed according to the established definition of faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T03:45:42Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Groundedness in Retrieval-augmented Long-form Generation: An Empirical Study [61.74571814707054]
  We evaluate whether every generated sentence is grounded in retrieved documents or the model's pre-training data. Across 3 datasets and 4 model families, our findings reveal that a significant fraction of generated sentences are consistently ungrounded. Our results show that while larger models tend to ground their outputs more effectively, a significant portion of correct answers remains compromised by hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-10T14:50:10Z)
• Teaching language models to support answers with verified quotes [12.296242080730831]
  We train "open-book" QA models that generate answers whilst also citing specific evidence for their claims. Our 280 billion parameter model, GopherCite, is able to produce answers with high quality supporting evidence and abstain from answering when unsure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-21T17:26:29Z)
• Interpretable Data-Based Explanations for Fairness Debugging [7.266116143672294]
  Gopher is a system that produces compact, interpretable, and causal explanations for bias or unexpected model behavior. We introduce the concept of causal responsibility that quantifies the extent to which intervening on training data by removing or updating subsets of it can resolve the bias. Building on this concept, we develop an efficient approach for generating the top-k patterns that explain model bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-17T20:10:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.