Automated Testing of LLM-Based Post Hoc Explainers Using Model Checking as an Oracle

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, where free-text explanations such as chain-of-thought and post-hoc rationales are used to justify model outputs. Yet it remains unclear whether these explanations are sufficient, i.e., if they contain enough information to explain the model's output-generating process. We generalize classical sufficiency from feature attributions to arbitrary explanations and prove that explanation sufficiency can change depending on the input distribution, which must be explicitly defined for LLM explanations. We propose using the LLM itself to generate alternative inputs conditioned on an explanation, capturing its beliefs about possible inputs. We formalize self-consistent sufficiency as a goal for free-text explanations and introduce an information-theoretic metric, SCSuff, that enables evaluation of free-text explanations without relying on predefined biases or shortcuts. Our experiments show that SCSuff agrees with targeted perturbation tests where applicable and demonstrate that explanation sufficiency can vary with the input distribution. We find LLM explanations are generally insufficient and weakly correlated with model size, accuracy, or output entropy. Analysis of final-token hidden states shows that top and bottom SCSuff scores can be predicted from internal representations, suggesting that SCSuff can guide detection and improvement of sufficient LLM explanations. The code for this paper is available at https://github.com/rajesh-lab/self-consistent-sufficiency .

Large language models can easily generate explanations for their own outputs, but such self-explanations are not necessarily faithful to the model's behavior. We study this issue through counterfactual self-explanations, where a model minimally edits an input so that its own prediction changes. Across sentiment analysis and natural language inference, we evaluate ten instruction-tuned models from the LLaMA-3 and Qwen-2.5 families, measuring faithfulness, minimality, and alignment with human-annotated rationales. Our results show that model scale is the strongest determinant of explanation quality: larger models are substantially more likely to generate counterfactuals that flip their own predictions and target decision-relevant evidence. In contrast, the rationale-guided condition produces edit-minimal counterfactuals that are also more human-aligned. However, it does not consistently improve faithfulness. Overall, counterfactual self-explanations can provide useful behavioral evidence about model decisions, but their reliability depends strongly on model capacity and should be empirically validated rather than assumed.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate natural language explanations that rationalize their own decisions, a phenomenon commonly referred to as self-explanations. Such explanations have emerged as a promising direction for explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), particularly for interpreting LLM behavior. However, while self-explanations often appear plausible, whether they faithfully reflect a model's underlying reasoning process remains an open question. In this opinion paper, we argue that self-explanations can be highly plausible, questionably faithful, and yet highly actionable. From a traditional XAI perspective, we identify the limitations of standard evaluation protocols for LLM-generated self-explanations and propose practical guidelines for assessing their plausibility and faithfulness. Moreover, we argue that evaluation should extend beyond these criteria to actionability, highlighting applications of LLM rationalization capabilities that support informed decision-making and appropriate action across diverse stakeholders.