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.
When asked to explain their decisions, LLMs can often give explanations which sound plausible to humans. But are these explanations faithful, i.e. do they convey the factors actually responsible for the decision? In this work, we analyse counterfactual faithfulness across 75 models from 13 families. We analyze the tradeoff between conciseness and comprehensiveness, how correlational faithfulness metrics assess this tradeoff, and the extent to which metrics can be gamed. This analysis motivates two new metrics: the phi-CCT, a simplified variant of the Correlational Counterfactual Test (CCT) which avoids the need for token probabilities while explaining most of the variance of the original test; and F-AUROC, which eliminates sensitivity to imbalanced intervention distributions and captures a model's ability to produce explanations with different levels of detail. Our findings reveal a clear scaling trend: larger and more capable models are consistently more faithful on all metrics we consider. Our code is available at https://github.com/google-deepmind/corr_faith.
Noah Y. Siegel, Nicolas Heess, Maria Perez-Ortiz +1
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.
Yeoktatt Cheah, María Pérez-Ortiz, Noah Y. Siegel +1
Natural-language explanations are often treated as a unified interface for understanding model behavior, but different explanation sources may support simulation in different ways. This paper compares two families of explanations for question answering models: verbalized feature attributions and self-generated rationales. We evaluate them under a shared counterfactual simulation setting, using an LLM judge as predictor and measuring whether it can better predict a model's answers to follow-up questions when given its explanation. Across multiple instruction-tuned models, we analyze how explanation source, verbalization strategy, and feature granularity affect the simulatability of explanations. Our results show that explanation format and granularity affect simulatability: attribution-based explanations and self-generated rationales differ in how much they improve counterfactual prediction, with effects that vary across models and formats.