mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Sufficiency-Conciseness Trade-off in LLM Self-Explanation from an Information Bottleneck Perspective

arXiv 2602.14002 ↗First posted 15 Feb 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Test-time compute and efficient thinking

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models increasingly rely on self-explanations, such as chain of thought reasoning, to improve performance on multi step question answering. While these explanations enhance accuracy, they are often verbose and costly to generate, raising the question of how much explanation is truly necessary. In this paper, we examine the trade-off between sufficiency, defined as the ability of an explanation to justify the correct answer, and conciseness, defined as the reduction in explanation length. Building on the information bottleneck principle, we conceptualize explanations as compressed representations that retain only the information essential for producing correct answers.To operationalize this view, we introduce an evaluation pipeline that constrains explanation length and assesses sufficiency using multiple language models on the ARC Challenge dataset. To broaden the scope, we conduct experiments in both English, using the original dataset, and Persian, as a resource-limited language through translation. Our experiments show that more concise explanations often remain sufficient, preserving accuracy while substantially reducing explanation length, whereas excessive compression leads to performance degradation.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 23 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Feb 2026.

Builds on

23 of 43 references.

References · 23

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  3. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
  4. 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,530
  5. 2024GPT-4o System Cardcited by 4,467
  6. 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,323
  7. 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
  8. 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,348
  9. 2022Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 1,397
  10. 2022Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Modelscited by 1,054
  11. 2015Deep Learning and the Information Bottleneck Principlecited by 793
  12. 2019Attention is not not Explanationcited by 629
11 more
  1. 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
  2. 2019ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Modelscited by 523
  3. 2022Language Models are Multilingual Chain-of-Thought Reasonerscited by 518
  4. 2022Towards Faithful Model Explanation in NLP: A Surveycited by 129
  5. 2024Are self-explanations from Large Language Models faithful?cited by 101
  6. 2023How Does Information Bottleneck Help Deep Learning?cited by 92
  7. 2023Can Large Language Models Explain Themselves? A Study of LLM-Generated Self-Explanationscited by 90
  8. 2021When Can Models Learn From Explanations? A Formal Framework for Understanding the Roles of Explanation Datacited by 75
  9. 2025Explain Yourself, Briefly! Self-Explaining Neural Networks with Concise Sufficient Reasonscited by 11
  10. 2025A Generalized Information Bottleneck Theory of Deep Learningcited by 4
  11. 2024Sufficient and Necessary Explanations (and What Lies in Between)cited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026What LLMs explain is not what they believe: Evaluating explanation sufficiency under models' own input beliefs
  2. 2025How Well do LLMs Compress Their Own Chain-of-Thought? A Token Complexity Approach
  3. 2024Faithfulness vs. Plausibility: On the (Un)Reliability of Explanations from Large Language Models
  4. 2025Between Underthinking and Overthinking: An Empirical Study of Reasoning Length and correctness in LLMs
  5. 2026Same Question, Different Answers: Evaluating LLM Reliability Beyond Accuracy
  6. 2023On Measuring Faithfulness or Self-consistency of Natural Language Explanations
  7. 2025AbstentionBench: Reasoning LLMs Fail on Unanswerable Questions
  8. 2026ICE: Intervention-Consistent Explanation Evaluation with Statistical Grounding for LLMs