Introspective Coupling: Self-Explanation Training Tracks Behavioral Change Despite Fixed Supervision
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
When does training language models (LMs) to generate explanations of their predictions yield faithful introspection, rather than superficial imitation? We study LMs trained to explain which features of their inputs influenced their behavior, using models' counterfactual behavior on modified inputs as supervision. Surprisingly, we find that LMs trained on fixed counterfactual explanations derived from earlier checkpoints of themselves, or even from behaviorally similar models in different families, frequently produce explanations more faithful to their own current behaviors than to those of their training targets. This "introspective" coupling between LM explanations and behaviors occurs when training explanations remain sufficiently correlated with current behaviors over the course of training, even as behaviors themselves shift. We also show that introspective coupling tracks behavior shifts: when explanation training is provided concurrently with other post-training objectives, explanations track those shifts without requiring updated supervision. This phenomenon appears in multiple tasks, including sycophancy and refusal, and is robust to label noise. Overall, our results show that even fixed datasets of counterfactual explanations can provide scalable and generalizable post-training signal for introspection.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 35 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jun 2026.
Builds on
35 of 46 references.
References · 35
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,130
- 2024The FineWeb Datasets: Decanting the Web for the Finest Text Data at Scalecited by 1,104
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 988
- 2024WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wildcited by 598
- 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Thinkcited by 388
- 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safetycited by 222
- 2024WildTeaming at Scale: From In-the-Wild Jailbreaks to (Adversarially) Safer Language Modelscited by 206
- 2023Simple synthetic data reduces sycophancy in large language modelscited by 174
- 2024Latent Adversarial Training Improves Robustness to Persistent Harmful Behaviors in LLMscited by 158
- 2023Circuit Component Reuse Across Tasks in Transformer Language Modelscited by 105
23 more
- 2024Looking Inward: Language Models Can Learn About Themselves by Introspectioncited by 105
- 2024Are self-explanations from Large Language Models faithful?cited by 101
- 2025Tell me about yourself: LLMs are aware of their learned behaviorscited by 86
- 2024Me, Myself, and AI: The Situational Awareness Dataset (SAD) for LLMscited by 78
- 2026Emergent Introspective Awareness in Large Language Modelscited by 73
- 2025FalseReject: A Resource for Improving Contextual Safety and Mitigating Over-Refusals in LLMs via Structured Reasoningcited by 53
- 2024LatentQA: Teaching LLMs to Decode Activations Into Natural Languagecited by 49
- 2025Activation Oracles: Training and Evaluating LLMs as General-Purpose Activation Explainerscited by 41
- 2025Language Models Fail to Introspect About Their Knowledge of Languagecited by 28
- 2025Training Language Models to Explain Their Own Computationscited by 27
- 2025Self-Interpretability: LLMs Can Describe Complex Internal Processes that Drive Their Decisionscited by 23
- 2025Does It Make Sense to Speak of Introspection in Large Language Models?cited by 22
- 2025Privileged Self-Access Matters for Introspection in AIcited by 20
- 2025Training LLMs for Honesty via Confessionscited by 19
- 2026Counterfactual Simulation Training for Chain-of-Thought Faithfulnesscited by 15
- 2025Spilling the Beans: Teaching LLMs to Self-Report Their Hidden Objectivescited by 13
- 2026A Positive Case for Faithfulness: LLM Self-Explanations Help Predict Model Behaviorcited by 12
- 2026Latent Introspection: Models Can Detect Prior Concept Injectionscited by 12
- 2025Predictive Concept Decoders: Training Scalable End-to-End Interpretability Assistantscited by 10
- 2025Learning to Interpret Weight Differences in Language Modelscited by 9
- 2026Introspection Adapters: Training LLMs to Report Their Learned Behaviorscited by 8
- 2026Can LLMs Introspect? A Reality Checkcited by 8
- 2026Emergent Introspection in AI is Content-Agnosticcited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
- 2026Train the Model, Not the Reader: Decodability Supervision for Verifiable Activation Explanationscited by 2
- 2026Would this change your answer? Evaluating Explanations of LLM Behavior In The Wild with Counterfactual Experimentscited by 2
- 2026Evaluating Persistent Calibration under Evolving Model Knowledgecited by 0
- 2026Evaluating Persistent Calibration under Evolving Model Knowledge30 Sep 2026
- 2026Would this change your answer? Evaluating Explanations of LLM Behavior In The Wild with Counterfactual Experiments17 Aug 2026
- 2026Train the Model, Not the Reader: Decodability Supervision for Verifiable Activation Explanations22 Jul 2026