A Removal Based Approach to Improve LLM Faithfulness at Test-Time

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04343v1
• Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2026 18:09:26 GMT
• Title: A Removal Based Approach to Improve LLM Faithfulness at Test-Time
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 2.6612030624044194
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for consequential decisions, making their explanations an important tool for auditing model behavior. Unfortunately, these explanations can be unfaithful, failing to reflect the actual reasoning underlying the model's decisions. We consider a setting in which an LLM provides both an answer and an explanation in response to a question. We identify two distinct dimensions of unfaithful explanations: incompleteness, meaning that the explanation omits factors that influence the answer, and unsoundness, meaning that the explanation cites factors that did not influence the model's answer. Existing approaches to improving LLM faithfulness include training-time methods, which require access to model weights and extensive computational resources, and test-time methods that largely focus on addressing unsoundness. We introduce a test-time approach that directly targets incompleteness. We remove from the input the concepts not credited in the model's explanation and re-query the model on the reduced input. This eliminates unmentioned influences while preserving the influence of mentioned concepts. Across two datasets, multiple model families, and two independent faithfulness metrics, our approach improves explanation faithfulness compared to both standard prompting and prompting to encourage faithfulness. Our method is model-agnostic and can be applied at inference time without modifying model parameters, providing a flexible mechanism for reducing hidden influences and improving the reliability and safety of LLM-assisted decision making.

Related papers

• An Empirical Study of Counterfactual Self-Explanations in LLMs [13.093234754814851]
  Large language models can easily generate explanations for their own outputs, but such self-explanations are not necessarily faithful to the model's behavior.<n>We study this issue through counterfactual self-explanations, where a model minimally edits an input so that its own prediction changes.<n>Our results show that model scale is the strongest determinant of explanation quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T12:47:22Z)
• 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)
• WakenLLM: Evaluating Reasoning Potential and Stability in LLMs via Fine-Grained Benchmarking [34.350505059394536]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently output the label Unknown in reasoning tasks.<n>We introduce WakenLLM, a framework that quantifies the portion of Unknown output attributable to model incapacity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T03:21:48Z)
• Walk the Talk? Measuring the Faithfulness of Large Language Model Explanations [0.8949668577519213]
  Large language models (LLMs) are capable of generating plausible explanations of how they arrived at an answer to a question.<n>These explanations can misrepresent the model's "reasoning" process, i.e., they can be unfaithful.<n>We introduce a new approach for measuring the faithfulness of LLM explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-19T02:51:20Z)
• Disentangling Memory and Reasoning Ability in Large Language Models [97.26827060106581]
  We propose a new inference paradigm that decomposes the complex inference process into two distinct and clear actions.<n>Our experiment results show that this decomposition improves model performance and enhances the interpretability of the inference process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T17:55:38Z)
• 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 the Reliability of Self-Explanations in Large Language Models [2.8894038270224867]
  We evaluate two kinds of such self-explanations - extractive and counterfactual.<n>Our findings reveal, that, while these self-explanations can correlate with human judgement, they do not fully and accurately follow the model's decision process.<n>We show that this gap can be bridged because prompting LLMs for counterfactual explanations can produce faithful, informative, and easy-to-verify results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T17:41:08Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• R-Tuning: Instructing Large Language Models to Say `I Don't Know' [66.11375475253007]
  Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized numerous domains with their impressive performance but still face their challenges. Previous instruction tuning methods force the model to complete a sentence no matter whether the model knows the knowledge or not. We present a new approach called Refusal-Aware Instruction Tuning (R-Tuning) Experimental results demonstrate R-Tuning effectively improves a model's ability to answer known questions and refrain from answering unknown questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T08:45:44Z)
• Improving the Reliability of Large Language Models by Leveraging Uncertainty-Aware In-Context Learning [76.98542249776257]
  Large-scale language models often face the challenge of "hallucination" We introduce an uncertainty-aware in-context learning framework to empower the model to enhance or reject its output in response to uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-07T12:06:53Z)

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.