mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Removal Based Approach to Improve LLM Faithfulness at Test-Time

arXiv 2609.04343 ↗First posted 3 Sep 2026cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for consequential decisions, making their explanations an important tool for auditing model behavior. Unfortunately, these explanations can be unfaithful, failing to reflect the actual reasoning underlying the model's decisions. We consider a setting in which an LLM provides both an answer and an explanation in response to a question. We identify two distinct dimensions of unfaithful explanations: incompleteness, meaning that the explanation omits factors that influence the answer, and unsoundness, meaning that the explanation cites factors that did not influence the model's answer. Existing approaches to improving LLM faithfulness include training-time methods, which require access to model weights and extensive computational resources, and test-time methods that largely focus on addressing unsoundness. We introduce a test-time approach that directly targets incompleteness. We remove from the input the concepts not credited in the model's explanation and re-query the model on the reduced input. This eliminates unmentioned influences while preserving the influence of mentioned concepts. Across two datasets, multiple model families, and two independent faithfulness metrics, our approach improves explanation faithfulness compared to both standard prompting and prompting to encourage faithfulness. Our method is model-agnostic and can be applied at inference time without modifying model parameters, providing a flexible mechanism for reducing hidden influences and improving the reliability and safety of LLM-assisted decision making.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Sep 2026.

Builds on

16 of 19 references.

References · 16

  1. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  2. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
  3. 2021BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answeringcited by 683
  4. 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 668
  5. 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Thinkcited by 388
  6. 2023Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 285
  7. 2024Making Reasoning Matter: Measuring and Improving Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 108
  8. 2023Question Decomposition Improves the Faithfulness of Model-Generated Reasoningcited by 107
  9. 2025Walk the Talk? Measuring the Faithfulness of Large Language Model Explanationscited by 44
  10. 2024Bias-Augmented Consistency Training Reduces Biased Reasoning in Chain-of-Thoughtcited by 37
  11. 2024Towards Consistent Natural-Language Explanations via Explanation-Consistency Finetuningcited by 26
  12. 2025Teaching Models to Verbalize Reward Hacking in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 19
4 more
  1. 2024FaithLM: Towards Faithful Explanations for Large Language Modelscited by 18
  2. 2026Counterfactual Simulation Training for Chain-of-Thought Faithfulnesscited by 15
  3. 2026A Positive Case for Faithfulness: LLM Self-Explanations Help Predict Model Behaviorcited by 12
  4. 2026Faithfulness as Information Flow: Evaluating and Training Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.