TRUE: A Trustworthy Unified Explanation Framework for Large Language Model Reasoning
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in complex reasoning tasks, yet their decision-making processes remain difficult to interpret. Existing explanation methods often lack trustworthy structural insight and are limited to single-instance analysis, failing to reveal reasoning stability and systematic failure mechanisms. To address these limitations, we propose the Trustworthy Unified Explanation Framework (TRUE), which integrates executable reasoning verification, feasible-region directed acyclic graph (DAG) modeling, and causal failure mode analysis. At the instance level, we redefine reasoning traces as executable process specifications and introduce blind execution verification to assess operational validity. At the local structural level, we construct feasible-region DAGs via structure-consistent perturbations, enabling explicit characterization of reasoning stability and the executable region in the local input space. At the class level, we introduce a causal failure mode analysis method that identifies recurring structural failure patterns and quantifies their causal influence using Shapley values. Extensive experiments across multiple reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that the proposed framework provides multi-level, verifiable explanations, including executable reasoning structures for individual instances, feasible-region representations for neighboring inputs, and interpretable failure modes with quantified importance at the class level. These results establish a unified and principled paradigm for improving the interpretability and reliability of LLM reasoning systems.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 33 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Feb 2026.
Builds on
33 of 34 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2025Reasoning-Grounded Natural Language Explanations for Language Models14 Mar
- 2022Language Models of Code are Few-Shot Commonsense Learners13 Oct
Other references · 31
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,371
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,374
- 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,754
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,442
- 2022Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Themcited by 1,807
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
19 more
- 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 703
- 2023Plan-and-Solve Prompting: Improving Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought Reasoning by Large Language Modelscited by 560
- 2023Larger language models do in-context learning differentlycited by 394
- 2024CRUXEval: A Benchmark for Code Reasoning, Understanding and Executioncited by 300
- 2024Making Reasoning Matter: Measuring and Improving Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 110
- 2024Faithfulness vs. Plausibility: On the (Un)Reliability of Explanations from Large Language Modelscited by 105
- 2023Context-faithful Prompting for Large Language Modelscited by 80
- 2025Measuring Chain of Thought Faithfulness by Unlearning Reasoning Stepscited by 47
- 2024TokenSHAP: Interpreting Large Language Models with Monte Carlo Shapley Value Estimationcited by 42
- 2023Understanding In-Context Learning via Supportive Pretraining Datacited by 41
- 2024MMLU-CF: A Contamination-free Multi-task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 41
- 2024Competition of Mechanisms: Tracing How Language Models Handle Facts and Counterfactualscited by 40
- 2024AttriBoT: A Bag of Tricks for Efficiently Approximating Leave-One-Out Context Attributioncited by 23
- 2025SelfCite: Self-Supervised Alignment for Context Attribution in Large Language Modelscited by 20
- 2025TokenShapley: Token Level Context Attribution with Shapley Valuecited by 15
- 2025Noiser: Bounded Input Perturbations for Attributing Large Language Modelscited by 4
- 2025Understanding Data Influence with Differential Approximationcited by 3
- 2025MaxShapley: Towards Incentive-compatible Generative Search with Fair Context Attributioncited by 3
- 2025llmSHAP: A Principled Approach to LLM Explainabilitycited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Compliance vs. Sensibility: On the Reasoning Controllability in Large Language Models
- 2025Verifying Large Language Models' Reasoning Paths via Correlation Matrix Rank
- 2026From Chains to DAGs: Probing the Graph Structure of Reasoning in LLMs
- 2025VerifiAgent: a Unified Verification Agent in Language Model Reasoning
- 2026Dissecting Failure Dynamics in Large Language Model Reasoning
- 2026Large Language Model Reasoning Failures
- 2026Opening the Black Box: A Survey on the Mechanisms of Multi-Step Reasoning in Large Language Models
- 2026Can We Trust LLM's Logic? Quantifying Uncertainty, Coherence, and Robustness via a Graph-Based Framework