Reason2Decide: Rationale-Driven Multi-Task Learning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.20074v1
• Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 05:58:47 GMT
• Title: Reason2Decide: Rationale-Driven Multi-Task Learning
• Authors: H M Quamran Hasan, Housam Khalifa Bashier, Jiayi Dai, Mi-Young Kim, Randy Goebel,
• Abstract summary: We propose a two-stage training framework that addresses key challenges in self-rationalization, including exposure bias and task separation.<n>We evaluate Reason2Decide on three medical datasets, including a proprietary triage dataset and public biomedical QA datasets.
• Score: 1.4212625627319098
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Despite the wide adoption of Large Language Models (LLM)s, clinical decision support systems face a critical challenge: achieving high predictive accuracy while generating explanations aligned with the predictions. Current approaches suffer from exposure bias leading to misaligned explanations. We propose Reason2Decide, a two-stage training framework that addresses key challenges in self-rationalization, including exposure bias and task separation. In Stage-1, our model is trained on rationale generation, while in Stage-2, we jointly train on label prediction and rationale generation, applying scheduled sampling to gradually transition from conditioning on gold labels to model predictions. We evaluate Reason2Decide on three medical datasets, including a proprietary triage dataset and public biomedical QA datasets. Across model sizes, Reason2Decide outperforms other fine-tuning baselines and some zero-shot LLMs in prediction (F1) and rationale fidelity (BERTScore, BLEU, LLM-as-a-Judge). In triage, Reason2Decide is rationale source-robust across LLM-generated, nurse-authored, and nurse-post-processed rationales. In our experiments, while using only LLM-generated rationales in Stage-1, Reason2Decide outperforms other fine-tuning variants. This indicates that LLM-generated rationales are suitable for pretraining models, reducing reliance on human annotations. Remarkably, Reason2Decide achieves these gains with models 40x smaller than contemporary foundation models, making clinical reasoning more accessible for resource-constrained deployments while still providing explainable decision support.

Related papers

• FORESTLLM: Large Language Models Make Random Forest Great on Few-shot Tabular Learning [20.27406245916013]
  We propose a novel framework that unifies the structural inductive biases of decision forests with the semantic reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Our method is two-fold. First, we introduce a semantic splitting criterion in which the LLM evaluates candidate partitions based on their coherence over both labeled and unlabeled data, enabling the induction of more robust and generalizable tree structures under few-shot supervision.<n>Second, we propose a one-time in-context inference mechanism for leaf node stabilization, where the LLM distills the decision path and its supporting examples into a concise, deterministic prediction, replacing noisy empirical estimates with semantically informed outputs
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T14:08:51Z)
• Ground What You See: Hallucination-Resistant MLLMs via Caption Feedback, Diversity-Aware Sampling, and Conflict Regularization [38.469173375694076]
  This paper systematically analyzes the root causes of hallucinations in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs)<n>It identifies three critical factors: (1) an over-reliance on chained visual reasoning, where inaccurate initial descriptions anchor subsequent inferences to incorrect premises; (2) insufficient exploration diversity during policy optimization, leading the model to generate overly confident but erroneous outputs; and (3) destructive conflicts between training samples, where NTK similarity causes false associations and unstable parameter updates.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed method significantly reduces hallucination rates and effectively enhances the inference accuracy of MLLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-09T07:59:18Z)
• OncoReason: Structuring Clinical Reasoning in LLMs for Robust and Interpretable Survival Prediction [2.904892426557913]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance in biomedical NLP.<n>We present a unified, multi-task learning framework that aligns autoregressive LLMs with clinical reasoning for outcome prediction.<n>Our findings underscore the importance of reasoning-aware alignment in multi-task clinical modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-20T13:35:12Z)
• HALF: Harm-Aware LLM Fairness Evaluation Aligned with Deployment [52.374772443536045]
  HALF (Harm-Aware LLM Fairness) is a framework that assesses model bias in realistic applications and weighs the outcomes by harm severity.<n>We show that HALF exposes a clear gap between previous benchmarking success and deployment readiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T07:13:26Z)
• Audited Reasoning Refinement: Fine-Tuning Language Models via LLM-Guided Step-Wise Evaluation and Correction [1.41282143488996]
  Training a task-specific small reasoning model is challenging when direct human supervision or high-quality labels are scarce.<n>We propose Reason-Refine-then-Align (R2tA), which turns refined model rationales into supervision for training task-specific reasoning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T21:47:52Z)
• FairReason: Balancing Reasoning and Social Bias in MLLMs [54.26091556079722]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) already achieve state-of-the-art results across a wide range of tasks and modalities.<n>Recent studies explore advanced prompting schemes and post-training fine-tuning to push their reasoning ability further.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T19:57:22Z)
• Lost at the Beginning of Reasoning [85.17612793300238]
  We show that the first reasoning step exerts a disproportionately large influence on the final prediction.<n>We propose an efficient sampling strategy that leverages a reward model to identify and retain high-quality first reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-27T09:53:57Z)
• The Price of a Second Thought: On the Evaluation of Reasoning Efficiency in Large Language Models [54.88805865447848]
  We show that instruct models achieve higher efficiency overall, and problem difficulty affects efficiency.<n>We propose COTHINK, a simple two-stage pipeline: an instruct model drafts a brief outline, and a thinking model expands it.<n>On GSM8K, MATH500, and AIME24, COTHINK cuts token usage by 21.1% while keeping accuracy on four thinking models, and remains competitive with strong efficiency baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T06:24:45Z)
• AGIR: Assessing 3D Gait Impairment with Reasoning based on LLMs [0.0]
  gait impairment plays an important role in early diagnosis, disease monitoring, and treatment evaluation for neurodegenerative diseases.<n>Recent deep learning-based approaches have consistently improved classification accuracies, but they often lack interpretability.<n>We introduce AGIR, a novel pipeline consisting of a pre-trained VQ-VAE motion tokenizer and a Large Language Model (LLM) fine-tuned over pairs of motion tokens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-23T17:12:16Z)
• Reasoning on a Spectrum: Aligning LLMs to System 1 and System 2 Thinking [2.8972218767527527]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive reasoning abilities, yet their reliance on structured step-by-step reasoning reveals a critical limitation.<n>This work challenges the assumption that step-by-step reasoning is always optimal and highlights the need for adapting reasoning strategies based on task demands.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T02:58:37Z)
• 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)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Low-rank finetuning for LLMs: A fairness perspective [54.13240282850982]
  Low-rank approximation techniques have become the de facto standard for fine-tuning Large Language Models. This paper investigates the effectiveness of these methods in capturing the shift of fine-tuning datasets from the initial pre-trained data distribution. We show that low-rank fine-tuning inadvertently preserves undesirable biases and toxic behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T20:43:53Z)
• DetermLR: Augmenting LLM-based Logical Reasoning from Indeterminacy to Determinacy [76.58614128865652]
  We propose DetermLR, a novel perspective that rethinks the reasoning process as an evolution from indeterminacy to determinacy. First, we categorize known conditions into two types: determinate and indeterminate premises This provides an oveall direction for the reasoning process and guides LLMs in converting indeterminate data into progressively determinate insights. We automate the storage and extraction of available premises and reasoning paths with reasoning memory, preserving historical reasoning details for subsequent reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T10:05:51Z)

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.