Learning from Sufficient Rationales: Analysing the Relationship Between Explanation Faithfulness and Token-level Regularisation Strategies

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.16353v1
• Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 13:39:20 GMT
• Title: Learning from Sufficient Rationales: Analysing the Relationship Between Explanation Faithfulness and Token-level Regularisation Strategies
• Authors: Jonathan Kamp, Lisa Beinborn, Antske Fokkens,
• Abstract summary: We investigate the effects of rationale information on model performance.<n>We find that highly informative rationales are not likely to help classify the instance correctly.<n>We also find that incorporating rationale information in model inputs can boost cross-domain classification, but results are inconsistent per task and model type.
• Score: 5.225254533678075
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Human explanations of natural language, rationales, form a tool to assess whether models learn a label for the right reasons or rely on dataset-specific shortcuts. Sufficiency is a common metric for estimating the informativeness of rationales, but it provides limited insight into the effects of rationale information on model performance. We address this limitation by relating sufficiency to two modelling paradigms: the ability of models to identify which tokens are part of the rationale (through token classification) and the ability of improving model performance by incorporating rationales in the input (through attention regularisation). We find that highly informative rationales are not likely to help classify the instance correctly. Sufficiency conversely captures the classification impact of the non-rationalised context, which interferes with rationale information in the same input. We also find that incorporating rationale information in model inputs can boost cross-domain classification, but results are inconsistent per task and model type. Finally, sufficiency and token classification appear to be unrelated. These results exemplify the complexity of rationales, showing that metrics capable of systematically capturing this type of information merit further investigation.

Related papers

• Forgetting: A New Mechanism Towards Better Large Language Model Fine-tuning [51.92313556418432]
  Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) plays a critical role for pretrained large language models (LLMs)<n>We suggest categorizing tokens within each corpus into two parts -- positive and negative tokens -- based on whether they are useful to improve model performance.<n>We conduct experiments on well-established benchmarks, finding that this forgetting mechanism not only improves overall model performance and also facilitate more diverse model responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T11:22:23Z)
• Rationales Are Not Silver Bullets: Measuring the Impact of Rationales on Model Performance and Reliability [70.4107059502882]
  Training language models with rationales augmentation has been shown to be beneficial in many existing works.<n>We conduct comprehensive investigations to thoroughly inspect the impact of rationales on model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T02:39:37Z)
• Explaining the Unexplained: Revealing Hidden Correlations for Better Interpretability [1.8274323268621635]
  Real Explainer (RealExp) is an interpretability method that decouples the Shapley Value into individual feature importance and feature correlation importance.<n>RealExp enhances interpretability by precisely quantifying both individual feature contributions and their interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T10:50:50Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Improving Language Model Reasoning with Self-motivated Learning [60.779625789039486]
  textitSelf-motivated Learning framework motivates the model itself to automatically generate rationales on existing datasets. We train a reward model with the rank to evaluate the quality of rationales, and improve the performance of reasoning through reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-10T14:05:44Z)
• On the Foundations of Shortcut Learning [20.53986437152018]
  We study how predictivity and availability interact to shape models' feature use. We find that linear models are relatively unbiased, but introducing a single hidden layer with ReLU or Tanh units yields a bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T22:54:05Z)
• Explaining Explainability: Towards Deeper Actionable Insights into Deep Learning through Second-order Explainability [70.60433013657693]
  Second-order explainable AI (SOXAI) was recently proposed to extend explainable AI (XAI) from the instance level to the dataset level. We demonstrate for the first time, via example classification and segmentation cases, that eliminating irrelevant concepts from the training set based on actionable insights from SOXAI can enhance a model's performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T23:24:01Z)
• Does Self-Rationalization Improve Robustness to Spurious Correlations? [19.553357015260687]
  We ask whether training models to self-rationalize can aid in their learning to solve tasks for the right reasons. We evaluate robustness to spurious correlations in fine-tuned encoder-decoder and decoder-only models of six different sizes. We find that while self-rationalization can improve robustness to spurious correlations in low-resource settings, it tends to hurt robustness in higher-resource settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-24T19:54:57Z)
• Discriminatory Expressions to Produce Interpretable Models in Short Documents [0.0]
  State-of-the-art models are black boxes that should not be used to solve problems that may have a social impact. This paper presents a feature selection mechanism that is able to improve comprehensibility by using less but more meaningful features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-27T19:00:50Z)
• A Diagnostic Study of Explainability Techniques for Text Classification [52.879658637466605]
  We develop a list of diagnostic properties for evaluating existing explainability techniques. We compare the saliency scores assigned by the explainability techniques with human annotations of salient input regions to find relations between a model's performance and the agreement of its rationales with human ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-25T12:01:53Z)
• Fairness-Aware Learning with Prejudice Free Representations [2.398608007786179]
  We propose a novel algorithm that can effectively identify and treat latent discriminating features. The approach helps to collect discrimination-free features that would improve the model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-26T10:06:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.