TRUE: A Trustworthy Unified Explanation Framework for Large Language Model Reasoning
Organizations: Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China
Abstract
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.
Figures & tables
| MATH | MMLU | GSM8K | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | EA | OA | EC | ERR | EA | OA | EC | ERR | EA | OA | EC | ERR |
| CoT | 73.0 | 76.0 | 96.1 | 0.0 | 69.5 | 72.5 | 95.9 | 0.0 | 92.0 | 93.0 | 97.8 | 14.3 |
| Self-Refine | 72.5 | 75.0 | 96.7 | 0.0 | 63.0 | 66.0 | 91.7 | 7.4 | 90.5 | 92.0 | 98.4 | 0.0 |
| Zero-Shot-CoT | 74.5 | 78.5 | 93.6 | 4.7 | 59.0 | 69.0 | 83.3 | 4.8 | 93.5 | 95.0 | 97.9 | 10.0 |
| Plan-and-Solve | 70.0 | 73.0 | 95.2 | 1.9 | 56.0 | 72.5 | 72.4 | 12.7 | 92.5 | 93.0 | 98.4 | 14.3 |
| Avg. | 72.5 | 75.6 | 95.4 | 1.7 | 61.9 | 70.0 | 85.8 | 6.2 | 92.1 | 93.2 | 98.1 | 9.6 |
| MATH | MMLU | ||||||||
| Provider | Model | EA | OA | EC | ERR | EA | OA | EC | ERR |
| OpenAI | GPT-4o-mini | 71.5 | 74.0 | 95.9 | 1.9 | 70.0 | 72.0 | 95.8 | 3.6 |
| GPT-4.1-nano | 65.5 | 70.5 | 90.1 | 6.8 | 66.0 | 69.0 | 91.3 | 9.7 | |
| GPT-5-nano | 93.0 | 97.0 | 95.9 | 0.0 | 73.5 | 75.0 | 98.0 | 0.0 | |
| Gemini-2.0-Flash | 46.0 | 48.0 | 95.8 | 0.0 | 65.0 | 74.5 | 81.2 | 17.6 | |
| Alibaba | Qwen3.5-35B | 98.0 | 98.5 | 99.0 | 33.3 | 80.5 | 81.5 | 98.8 | 0.0 |
| Category | Pert. SR | Test SR | DAG CE | Baseline CE | CE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MATH | |||||
| Prealgebra | 50.0% | 87.5% | 1.05 | 11.51 | +10.46 |
| Number Theory | 83.3% | 75.0% | 0.75 | 1.39 | +0.64 |
| Intermediate Alg. | 33.3% | 50.0% | 0.30 | 0.75 | +0.45 |
| Counting & Prob. | 50.0% | 75.0% | 1.72 | 8.69 | +6.97 |
| Precalculus | 16.7% | 37.5% | 0.43 | 0.79 | +0.36 |
| MATH Dataset | MMLU-CF Dataset | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perturbation | Nodes | Edges | Pret.(%) | GT(%) | Nodes | Edges | Pret.(%) | GT(%) |
| Mild | 9 | 35 | 51.9 | 34.8 | 18 | 29 | 50.8 | 48.3 |
| Moderate | 10 | 35 | 74.2 | 62.9 | 23 | 30 | 58.8 | 53.1 |
| Aggressive | 13 | 31 | 96.4 | 96.4 | 26 | 32 | 66.6 | 61.3 |
| MATH-Algebra | MATH-Prealgebra | BBH-Logical | BBH-Spatial | CRUX-Simple | CRUX-Loop | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jac | Jac | Jac | Jac | Jac | Jac | ||||||||
| 5 | .59 ±.11 | .22 ±.88 | .70 ±.23 | .22 ±.57 | .59 ±.11 | .67 ±.27 | .89 ±.16 | .49 ±.13 | .89 ±.16 | .18 ±.14 | .67 ±.00 | .00 ±.27 | |
| 10 | .70 ±.23 | .71 ±.28 | .59 ±.11 | .56 ±.16 | .70 ±.23 | .51 ±.35 | .89 ±.16 | .49 ±.13 | .89 ±.16 | .13 ±.34 | .78 ±.16 | .07 ±.29 | |
| 20 | .67 ±.00 | .67 ±.27 | .67 ±.00 | .67 ±.00 | .59 ±.11 | .67 ±.27 | .67 ±.00 | .56 ±.16 | .89 ±.16 | .44 ±.26 | 1.00 ±.00 | .47 ±.47 | |
| 40 | .59 ±.11 | .44 ±.42 | .78 ±.16 | .44 ±.31 | .67 ±.00 | .33 ±.00 | .78 ±.16 | .36 ±.03 | .89 ±.16 | .33 ±.25 | .89 ±.16 | .38 ±.33 | |
| MATH | GSM8K | MMLU | BBH | CRUXEval | HotpotQA | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | OA | HFR | OA | HFR | OA | HFR | OA | HFR | OA | HFR | OA | HFR |
| CoT | 76.1 | 4.0 | 93.0 | 2.2 | 72.5 | 4.1 | 71.5 | 4.2 | 48.0 | 3.1 | 32.0 | 57.8 |
| Zero-Shot-CoT | 78.5 | 6.4 | 95.0 | 2.1 | 69.0 | 16.7 | 68.5 | 38.0 | 43.0 | 2.3 | 25.0 | 60.0 |
| Self-Refine | 75.2 | 3.3 | 92.0 | 1.6 | 66.0 | 8.3 | 60.5 | 30.6 | 42.0 | 10.7 | 15.0 | 70.0 |
| Plan-and-Solve | 73.0 | 4.8 | 93.0 | 1.6 | 72.5 | 27.6 | 70.0 | 54.3 | 46.5 | 4.3 | 24.0 | 58.3 |
LLM Interpretability
Large language model (LLM) interpretability studies how internal representations and computations produce outputs, and how they can be explained or controlled.
See all 754 papers