Walk the talk? Measuring the faithfulness of large language model explanations
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) are capable of generating plausible explanations of how they arrived at an answer to a question. However, these explanations can misrepresent the model's "reasoning" process, i.e., they can be unfaithful. This, in turn, can lead to over-trust and misuse. We introduce a new approach for measuring the faithfulness of LLM explanations. First, we provide a rigorous definition of faithfulness. Since LLM explanations mimic human explanations, they often reference high-level concepts in the input question that purportedly influenced the model. We define faithfulness in terms of the difference between the set of concepts that LLM explanations imply are influential and the set that truly are. Second, we present a novel method for estimating faithfulness that is based on: (1) using an auxiliary LLM to modify the values of concepts within model inputs to create realistic counterfactuals, and (2) using a Bayesian hierarchical model to quantify the causal effects of concepts at both the example- and dataset-level. Our experiments show that our method can be used to quantify and discover interpretable patterns of unfaithfulness. On a social bias task, we uncover cases where LLM explanations hide the influence of social bias. On a medical question answering task, we uncover cases where LLM explanations provide misleading claims about which pieces of evidence influenced the model's decisions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Clinical LLMs may generate plausible but medically incorrect explanations.
“generate plausible but medically incorrect explanations [11]”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
Clinical LLMs may exhibit sophisticated medical reasoning while actually relying on spurious correlations.
“models may exhibit sophisticated medical reasoning while actually relying on spurious correlations”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
High predictive accuracy does not correlate with high explanation faithfulness.
“revealing that high predictive accuracy does not correlate with high explanation faithfulness”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
Techniques like RLHF can systematically mask the true reasoning behind model outputs.
“and that techniques like RLHF can systematically mask the true reasoning behind model outputs.”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
The few studies that move beyond purely local explanations point to promising but underexplored directions.
“The few studies that move beyond purely local explanations [11, 74,80,81,104,116,125,129] point to promising but underexplored directions.”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
The absence of established quality criteria for explainability research means that studies with rigorous faithfulness evaluation are weighted equally with those providing only task-performance proxies.
“The absence of established quality criteria for explainability research means that studies with rigorous faithfulness evaluation [11,81] are weighted equally with those providing only task-performance proxies.”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
Plausible-sounding rationales do not necessarily reflect the model's actual computations.
“recent causal probing studies demonstrate that plausible-sounding rationales do not necessarily reflect the model's actual computations.”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
Studies have demonstrated that LLMs can generate coherent medical justifications for incorrect diagnoses when prompted.
“Studies have demonstrated that LLMs can generate coherent medical justifications for incorrect diagnoses when prompted [11,152]”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
On Measuring Faithfulness or Self-consistency of Natural Language Explanations
Parcalabescu, L., & Frank, A. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.07466 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
“…publication of this paper, more studies about faithfulness have emerged (Paul et al., 2024; Madsen et al., 2024; Braun and Kunz, 2024; Chuang et al., 2024; Agar-wal et al., 2024; Kunz and Kuhlmann, 2024; Siegel et al., 2024; Matton et al., 2024) – but still remain at the level of self-consistency.”
VADAOrchestra: Neurosymbolic Orchestration of Adaptive Reasoning Workflows
Baldazzi, T., Bellomarini, L., Coletta, A., Iezzi, M., Maple, C., Pesare, A., & Sallinger, E. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.22485
“Research on faithfulness has shown that LLMs frequently generate post-hoc explanations that do not reflect their actual reasoning paths (Lanham et al. 2023; Turpin et al. 2023; Tanneru et al. 2024; Matton et al. 2025).”
Explainable Agentic Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: A Scoping Review
Collaco, B. G., Prabha, S., Gomez-Cabello, C. A., Haider, S. A., Genovese, A., Wood, N. G., Gopala, N., Raman, R., Hester, E. O., & Forte, A. J. (2026) · Bioengineering · doi:10.3390/bioengineering13050513 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Matton, K., Ness, R. O., Guttag, J., & Kıcıman, E.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2504.14150
- OpenAlex
- W4415016237
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- large language models, explanation fidelity, explanation evaluation, counterfactual reasoning, Bayesian hierarchical model, social bias, medical question answering, interpretability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
