Investigating Training and Generalization in Faithful Self-Explanations of Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models have the potential to generate explanations for their own predictions in a variety of styles based on user instructions. Recent research has examined whether these self-explanations faithfully reflect the models' actual behavior and has found that they often lack faithfulness. However, the question of how to improve faithfulness remains underexplored. Moreover, because different explanation styles have superficially distinct characteristics, it is unclear whether improvements observed in one style also arise when using other styles. This study analyzes the effects of training for faithful self-explanations and the extent to which these effects generalize, using three classification tasks and three explanation styles. We construct one-word constrained explanations that are likely to be faithful using a feature attribution method, and use these pseudo-faithful self-explanations for continual learning on instruction-tuned models. Our experiments demonstrate that training can improve self-explanation faithfulness across all classification tasks and explanation styles, and that these improvements also show signs of generalization to the multi-word settings and to unseen tasks. Furthermore, we find consistent cross-style generalization among three styles, suggesting that training may contribute to a broader improvement in faithful self-explanation ability.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Dec 2025.
Builds on
17 of 23 references.
References · 17
- 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
- 2015A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inferencecited by 1,837
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
- 2023An Empirical Study of Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Models During Continual Fine-tuningcited by 622
- 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
- 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Thinkcited by 388
- 2023Camels in a Changing Climate: Enhancing LM Adaptation with Tulu 2cited by 227
- 2016Understanding Neural Networks through Representation Erasurecited by 223
- 2020Evaluating Explainable AI: Which Algorithmic Explanations Help Users Predict Model Behavior?cited by 189
- 2022Fine-tuned Language Models are Continual Learnerscited by 152
- 2023Faithfulness Tests for Natural Language Explanationscited by 107
5 more
- 2024Are self-explanations from Large Language Models faithful?cited by 101
- 2023Can Large Language Models Explain Themselves? A Study of LLM-Generated Self-Explanationscited by 90
- 2025Are DeepSeek R1 And Other Reasoning Models More Faithful?cited by 69
- 2025Walk the Talk? Measuring the Faithfulness of Large Language Model Explanationscited by 44
- 2024On Behalf of the Stakeholders: Trends in NLP Model Interpretability in the Era of LLMscited by 24
Built on by
Not cited yet.