Training Large Language Models for Self-Explanation Faithfulness
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We propose a Reinforcement Learning (RL) method to directly optimize the faithfulness of self-explanations - the extent to which a model's generated reasoning accurately reflects its internal decision-making process. While existing work focuses on evaluating faithfulness or using inference-time prompting frameworks to improve an LLM's self-explanation's tractability, these approaches do not provide a mechanism to directly optimize a model's parameters to generate faithful self-explanations. We bridge this gap by modifying existing faithfulness metrics into an RL training objective. We investigate (1) if models can be trained to accurately detect factors that affect their decisions, and (2) whether RL can directly optimize for the disclosure of these factors thereby improving LLM self-explanations' faithfulness. We experiment with two intervention types: random-word insertions and user-bias insertions, using a per-sample reward derived from the Phi-CCT correlation metric. RL fine-tuned Llama3.1-8B and Qwen3-8B show substantial improvements on the Phi-CCT faithfulness metric, with in-distribution scores rising from near-zero to as high as 0.664, and out-of-distribution scores reaching up to 0.691 on held-out tasks such as StrategyQA. Cross-intervention generalization is weaker but more interesting: a priori we would not expect a model trained only on random word insertions to generalize to user-bias phrases, yet Llama3.1-8B shows non-zero transfer in this direction. The reverse direction and Qwen3-8B do not replicate this, indicating model-dependent and setup-dependent effects we cannot yet explain. Lastly we analyze model behavior to rule out reward gaming behaviors that often plague RL training. Ultimately, we show that models can be trained to implicitly identify influential factors and disclose them, offering a scalable path toward reducing unfaithful reasoning in LLMs.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jul 2026.
Builds on
23 of 31 references.
References · 23
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
- 2021Did Aristotle Use a Laptop? A Question Answering Benchmark with Implicit Reasoning Strategiescited by 736
- 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 668
- 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
- 2018e-SNLI: Natural Language Inference with Natural Language Explanationscited by 468
- 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Thinkcited by 388
- 2022Quark: Controllable Text Generation with Reinforced Unlearningcited by 236
- 2024Making Reasoning Matter: Measuring and Improving Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 108
- 2023Faithfulness Tests for Natural Language Explanationscited by 107
11 more
- 2023Question Decomposition Improves the Faithfulness of Model-Generated Reasoningcited by 107
- 2024Faithfulness vs. Plausibility: On the (Un)Reliability of Explanations from Large Language Modelscited by 104
- 2023On Measuring Faithfulness or Self-consistency of Natural Language Explanationscited by 71
- 2020SemEval-2020 Task 4: Commonsense Validation and Explanationcited by 42
- 2024Bias-Augmented Consistency Training Reduces Biased Reasoning in Chain-of-Thoughtcited by 37
- 2024The Probabilities Also Matter: A More Faithful Metric for Faithfulness of Free-Text Explanations in Large Language Modelscited by 29
- 2023Tailoring Self-Rationalizers with Multi-Reward Distillationcited by 21
- 2026Biases in the Blind Spot: Detecting What LLMs Fail to Mentioncited by 8
- 2024FLARE: Faithful Logic-Aided Reasoning and Explorationcited by 7
- 2025Towards Transparent Reasoning: What Drives Faithfulness in Large Language Models?cited by 5
- 2021Faithful and Plausible Explanations of Medical Code Predictionscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Self-CTRL: Self-Consistency Training with Reinforcement Learning
- 2026A Positive Case for Faithfulness: LLM Self-Explanations Help Predict Model Behavior
- 2025Incentivizing LLMs to Self-Verify Their Answers
- 2026Learning to Self-Verify Makes Language Models Better Reasoners
- 2024Are self-explanations from Large Language Models faithful?
- 2025Post-Training Large Language Models via Reinforcement Learning from Self-Feedback
- 2025ReVISE: Learning to Refine at Test-Time via Intrinsic Self-Verification
- 2025NeuroFaith: Evaluating LLM Self-Explanation Faithfulness via Internal Representation Alignment