The 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.
Abstract
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.
Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning allows humans to inspect how large language models reach their answers, and oversee model behaviour. This reasoning comes at an increased inference cost, motivating efficient methods that train models to solve tasks using fewer tokens. However, a common concern is that such training may...
Samuel Lewis-Lim, Xing-Wei Tan, Mario Sanger et al.· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) are expected to answer questions faithfully based on the provided context, abstaining when the context information is insufficient to answer the questions. Existing faithfulness evaluations typically assess each question-context instance in isolation; however, such instance-level evaluation...
Zi-Zhuo Zhang, Xiong Peng, Jing-Wei Sun et al.· 0 citations
The results indicate how trustworthy LLM-generated explanations are in model-free settings, where the same LLMs are used but no oracle exists to verify them.
Chain-of-thought (CoT) traces often serve as a proxy for how Large Language Models (LLMs) arrive at their answers. However, growing evidence shows that models'CoT often fails to reflect their internal computations and can be changed without affecting their final answers. In this work, we measure and improve the alignme...
Yi-Huai Hong, Shauli Ravfogel, Chen Zhao et al.· 0 citations
Language models are appealing tools for research on the past. But to trust the evidence a model provides, researchers need to know whether its responses fit the period represented. Validation is challenging, because this is not a task living people ordinarily perform, and because many questions have multiple correct an...
Ted Underwood, Zi-Liang Qiu, Sarah Griebel et al.· 0 citations
Reasoning traces generated by large language models (LLMs) provide interpretability by exposing the factors that purportedly support their predictions. Such interpretability is important because model decisions may rely on spurious factors, and it can help practitioners identify such reliance and respond appropriately....
Jia-Lai Wang, Jun-Chen Lu, Song-Tao Yang et al.· Proceedings of the 41st IEEE...· 0 citations