Large language models (LLMs) increasingly produce natural language explanations, yet these explanations often lack faithfulness, and they do not reliably reflect the evidence the model uses to decide. We introduce FaithLM, a model-agnostic framework that evaluates and improves the faithfulness of LLM explanations without token masking or task-specific heuristics. FaithLM formalizes explanation faithfulness as an intervention property: a faithful explanation should yield a prediction shift when its content is contradicted. Theoretical analysis shows that the resulting contrary-hint score is a sound and discriminative estimator of faithfulness. Building on this principle, FaithLM iteratively refines both the elicitation prompt and the explanation to maximize the measured score. Experiments on three multi-domain datasets and multiple LLM backbones demonstrate that FaithLM consistently increases faithfulness and produces explanations more aligned with human rationales than strong self-explanation baselines. These findings highlight that intervention-based evaluation, coupled with iterative optimization, provides a principled route toward faithful and reliable LLM explanations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted across real-world applications, yet traditional evaluations rely on expensive, domain-specific ground-truth labels that are often unavailable or infeasible. We introduce a ground-truth-free evaluation framework focused on reasoning consistency and instruction following, shifting the emphasis from correctness—which is elusive without labels—to transparent, coherent, evidence-based reasoning. Each model response must include a direct answer, a structured multi-step explanation, and supporting evidence, all assessed via semantic similarity and output adherence checks. We further propose TopK-ReRank, which refines rankings by constructing a consensus answer from the most reliable models, reducing ambiguity across diverse reasoning styles. Experiments show that our framework outperforms existing label-free methods, including majority voting, triplet ranking, and peer-review approaches, providing a more interpretable and efficient alternative for evaluating LLMs in the absence of ground-truth labels.