Faithfulness Serum: Mitigating the Faithfulness Gap in Textual Explanations of LLM Decisions via Attribution Guidance

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.14325v1
• Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 18:32:32 GMT
• Title: Faithfulness Serum: Mitigating the Faithfulness Gap in Textual Explanations of LLM Decisions via Attribution Guidance
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance and have revolutionized NLP.<n>Their lack of explainability keeps them treated as black boxes, limiting their use in domains that demand transparency and trust.<n>We introduce a training-free method that enhances faithfulness by guiding explanation generation through attention-level interventions.
• Score: 57.17102098930037
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance and have revolutionized NLP, but their lack of explainability keeps them treated as black boxes, limiting their use in domains that demand transparency and trust. A promising direction to address this issue is post-hoc text-based explanations, which aim to explain model decisions in natural language. Prior work has focused on generating convincing rationales that appear to be subjectively faithful, but it remains unclear whether these explanations are epistemically faithful, whether they reflect the internal evidence the model actually relied on for its decision. In this paper, we first assess the epistemic faithfulness of LLM-generated explanations via counterfactuals and show that they are often unfaithful. We then introduce a training-free method that enhances faithfulness by guiding explanation generation through attention-level interventions, informed by token-level heatmaps extracted via a faithful attribution method. This method significantly improves epistemic faithfulness across multiple models, benchmarks, and prompts.

Related papers

• A Removal Based Approach to Improve LLM Faithfulness at Test-Time [2.6612030624044194]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for consequential decisions.<n>These explanations can be unfaithful, failing to reflect the actual reasoning underlying the model's decisions.<n>We introduce a test-time approach that directly targets incompleteness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-03T18:09:26Z)
• Zero-Shot Faithful Textual Explanations via Directional-Derivative Influence on Predictions [12.961180148172199]
  textual explanations aim to make image classifiers more transparent by probing their internal representations.<n>FaithTrace measures how much the representation induced by the explanation changes the class logit.<n>We extend this influence score into quantitative evaluation metrics, helping fill the gap in faithfulness evaluation for textual explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-16T08:39:05Z)
• Aligning Large Language Models for Faithful Integrity Against Opposing Argument [71.33552795870544]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in complex reasoning tasks.<n>They can be easily misled by unfaithful arguments during conversations, even when their original statements are correct.<n>We propose a novel framework, named Alignment for Faithful Integrity with Confidence Estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-02T16:38:21Z)
• 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)
• Understanding the Relationship between Prompts and Response Uncertainty in Large Language Models [55.332004960574004]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in decision-making, but their reliability, especially in critical tasks like healthcare, is not well-established.<n>This paper investigates how the uncertainty of responses generated by LLMs relates to the information provided in the input prompt.<n>We propose a prompt-response concept model that explains how LLMs generate responses and helps understand the relationship between prompts and response uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T11:19:58Z)
• 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)
• Can LLMs Produce Faithful Explanations For Fact-checking? Towards Faithful Explainable Fact-Checking via Multi-Agent Debate [75.10515686215177]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in text generation, but their capability for producing faithful explanations in fact-checking remains underexamined. We propose the Multi-Agent Debate Refinement (MADR) framework, leveraging multiple LLMs as agents with diverse roles. MADR ensures that the final explanation undergoes rigorous validation, significantly reducing the likelihood of unfaithful elements and aligning closely with the provided evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T04:32:33Z)
• FaithLM: Towards Faithful Explanations for Large Language Models [60.45183469474916]
  We introduce FaithLM, a model-agnostic framework that evaluates and improves the faithfulness of large language models.<n>We show that FaithLM consistently increases faithfulness and produces explanations more aligned with human rationales than strong self-explanation baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T09:09:14Z)
• Faithfulness vs. Plausibility: On the (Un)Reliability of Explanations from Large Language Models [26.11408084129897]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed as powerful tools for several natural language processing (NLP) applications. Recent works show that modern LLMs can generate self-explanations (SEs), which elicit their intermediate reasoning steps for explaining their behavior. We discuss the dichotomy between faithfulness and plausibility in SEs generated by LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T06:32:50Z)

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.