From Plausible to Actionable: A Position on LLM Self-Explanations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.15957v1
• Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 13:44:19 GMT
• Title: From Plausible to Actionable: A Position on LLM Self-Explanations
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate natural language explanations that rationalize their own decisions.<n>We argue that self-explanations can be highly plausible, questionably faithful, and yet highly actionable.
• Score: 1.349571235047442
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate natural language explanations that rationalize their own decisions, a phenomenon commonly referred to as self-explanations.Such explanations have emerged as a promising direction for explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), particularly for interpreting LLM behavior.However, while self-explanations often appear plausible, whether they faithfully reflect a model's underlying reasoning process remains an open question. In this opinion paper, we argue that self-explanations can be highly plausible, questionably faithful, and yet highly actionable. From a traditional XAI perspective, we identify the limitations of standard evaluation protocols for LLM-generated self-explanations and propose practical guidelines for assessing their plausibility and faithfulness. Moreover, we argue that evaluation should extend beyond these criteria to actionability, highlighting applications of LLM rationalization capabilities that support informed decision-making and appropriate action across diverse stakeholders.

Related papers

• Beliefs and Behavior in Language Models [15.920644659904903]
  Beliefs are often invoked to explain the behavior of large language models (LLMs)<n>We ask whether a single latent variable inferred from the LLMs' outputs -- interpreted as a degree of belief -- allows an observer to make interpretable predictions.<n>We find that highly capable models are usefully described as holding beliefs and that, generally, the predictability of model outputs based on an inferred latent belief tracks overall trends in model capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T19:56:02Z)
• Faithfulness Serum: Mitigating the Faithfulness Gap in Textual Explanations of LLM Decisions via Attribution Guidance [57.17102098930037]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-15T18:32:32Z)
• Truly Assessing Fluid Intelligence of Large Language Models through Dynamic Reasoning Evaluation [106.17986469245302]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capacities that mirror human-like thinking.<n>Existing reasoning benchmarks either focus on domain-specific knowledge (crystallized intelligence) or lack interpretability.<n>We propose DRE-Bench, a dynamic reasoning evaluation benchmark grounded in a hierarchical cognitive framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T09:01:08Z)
• Towards Quantifying Commonsense Reasoning with Mechanistic Insights [7.124379028448955]
  We argue that a proxy of commonsense reasoning can be maintained as a graphical structure.<n>We create an annotation scheme for capturing this implicit knowledge in the form of a graphical structure for 37 daily human activities.<n>We find that the created resource can be used to frame an enormous number of commonsense queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T10:21:59Z)
• Local Explanations and Self-Explanations for Assessing Faithfulness in black-box LLMs [1.03590082373586]
  This paper introduces a novel task to assess the faithfulness of large language models (LLMs) using local perturbations and self-explanations. We propose a new efficient alternative explainability technique, inspired by the commonly used leave-one-out approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-18T10:16:45Z)
• Look Before You Decide: Prompting Active Deduction of MLLMs for Assumptive Reasoning [77.72128397088409]
  We show that most prevalent MLLMs can be easily fooled by the introduction of a presupposition into the question.<n>We also propose a novel reinforcement learning paradigm to encourage the model to actively perform composite deduction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T15:53:27Z)
• Towards Logically Consistent Language Models via Probabilistic Reasoning [14.317886666902822]
  Large language models (LLMs) are a promising venue for natural language understanding and generation tasks. LLMs are prone to generate non-factual information and to contradict themselves when prompted to reason about beliefs of the world. We introduce a training objective that teaches a LLM to be consistent with external knowledge in the form of a set of facts and rules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T12:23:57Z)
• 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)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)
• Phenomenal Yet Puzzling: Testing Inductive Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models with Hypothesis Refinement [92.61557711360652]
  Language models (LMs) often fall short on inductive reasoning, despite achieving impressive success on research benchmarks. We conduct a systematic study of the inductive reasoning capabilities of LMs through iterative hypothesis refinement. We reveal several discrepancies between the inductive reasoning processes of LMs and humans, shedding light on both the potentials and limitations of using LMs in inductive reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-12T17:51:10Z)
• Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems. LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning. We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z)

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.