ICE: Intervention-Consistent Explanation Evaluation with Statistical Grounding for LLMs

Evaluating whether explanations faithfully reflect a model's reasoning remains an open problem. Existing benchmarks use single interventions without statistical testing, making it impossible to distinguish genuine faithfulness from chance-level performance. We show that faithfulness is not a fixed property but an operator-dependent quantity that changes with the intervention method used to measure it. We introduce ICE (Intervention-Consistent Explanation), a framework that evaluates explanations against random baselines of equal size under multiple operators. Evaluating 7 LLMs across 4 tasks with deletion and retrieval infill operators, we find that switching operators crosses the positive-evidence threshold in 18% of configurations (5 of 28 attention comparisons), with gaps reaching 44 percentage points. Randomized baselines detect anti-faithfulness (explanations worse than random) in nearly one-third of English deletion configurations, invisible without random comparisons. These patterns persist across 6 non-English languages and 2 attribution methods. The methodology generalizes to step-level chain-of-thought evaluation, where preliminary results on 3 frontier models suggest that high accuracy does not imply faithful reasoning.