When Do Explanations Help In-Context Learning? A Comparative Study of Natural Language Explanation Types and Faithfulness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.16627v1
• Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 14:30:03 GMT
• Title: When Do Explanations Help In-Context Learning? A Comparative Study of Natural Language Explanation Types and Faithfulness
• Abstract summary: Natural language explanations (NLEs) are increasingly used as inputs in in-context learning (ICL)<n>It remains unclear how different types of NLEs compare in their effects on downstream model performance in explanation-augmented prompting.<n>We study how NLE source (human-written when available, self-generated explanations, generated by an external LLM) and NLE selection affect downstream utility of NLEs when used in ICL settings.
• Score: 45.5827385095586
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Natural language explanations (NLEs) are increasingly used as inputs, for example, as few-shot rationales that influence model behavior in in-context learning (ICL). However, it remains unclear how different types of NLEs compare in their effects on downstream model performance in explanation-augmented prompting. Therefore, we provide a comparative evaluation across six benchmarks and four instruction-tuned models, studying how NLE source (human-written when available, self-generated explanations, generated by an external LLM) and NLE selection (random vs faithfulness-based filtering) affect downstream utility of NLEs when used in ICL settings. Our extensive evaluation shows that, on classification-style benchmarks, adding NLEs to few-shot prompts often improves accuracy over few-shot prompting without explanations; among NLE sources, externally generated LLM-NLEs often provide strong downstream utility and remain competitive with human rationales where both are available, whereas self-NLEs are more sensitive to the selection strategy. On math reasoning, the effects are more model- and source-dependent. We further show that faithfulness-based selection of self-NLEs yields small average gains overall, but can improve or reduce performance depending on the metric, task, and model. Different faithfulness metrics can disagree substantially, affecting which self-NLE examples are selected and their downstream predictive utility. Robustness tests with randomly swapped and out-of-distribution rationales indicate partial robustness, suggesting that semantic alignment contributes to performance gains. Overall, our results provide insights for selecting and reporting explanations that influence model behavior in practical prompting pipelines.

Related papers

• LLM Microscope: What Model Internals Reveal About Answer Correctness and Context Utilization [9.410181019585822]
  We operationalize interpretability methods to ascertain whether we can predict the correctness of model outputs.<n>We consider correct, incorrect, and irrelevant context and introduce metrics to distinguish amongst them.<n>Our model-internals-based metric significantly outperforms prompting baselines at distinguishing between correct and incorrect context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-05T03:14:05Z)
• Model Utility Law: Evaluating LLMs beyond Performance through Mechanism Interpretable Metric [99.56567010306807]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become indispensable across academia, industry, and daily applications.<n>One core challenge of evaluation in the large language model (LLM) era is the generalization issue.<n>We propose Model Utilization Index (MUI), a mechanism interpretability enhanced metric that complements traditional performance scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T04:09:47Z)
• Self-Rationalization in the Wild: A Large Scale Out-of-Distribution Evaluation on NLI-related tasks [59.47851630504264]
  Free-text explanations are expressive and easy to understand, but many datasets lack annotated explanation data.<n>We fine-tune T5-Large and OLMo-7B models and assess the impact of fine-tuning data quality, the number of fine-tuning samples, and few-shot selection methods.<n>The models are evaluated on 19 diverse OOD datasets across three tasks: natural language inference (NLI), fact-checking, and hallucination detection in abstractive summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T10:01:32Z)
• Large Language Models are Biased Reinforcement Learners [0.0]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit behavioral signatures of a relative value bias. Computational cognitive modeling reveals that LLM behavior is well-described by a simple RL algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-19T01:43:52Z)
• Revisiting Demonstration Selection Strategies in In-Context Learning [66.11652803887284]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown an impressive ability to perform a wide range of tasks using in-context learning (ICL) In this work, we first revisit the factors contributing to this variance from both data and model aspects, and find that the choice of demonstration is both data- and model-dependent. We propose a data- and model-dependent demonstration selection method, textbfTopK + ConE, based on the assumption that textitthe performance of a demonstration positively correlates with its contribution to the model's understanding of the test samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-22T16:25:27Z)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Improve Robustness of In-context Learning [35.18010811754959]
  Large language models (LLMs) can excel in many tasks via in-context learning (ICL) We investigate whether augmenting ICL with natural language explanations (NLEs) improves the robustness of LLMs on adversarial datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T18:49:13Z)
• Situated Natural Language Explanations [54.083715161895036]
  Natural language explanations (NLEs) are among the most accessible tools for explaining decisions to humans. Existing NLE research perspectives do not take the audience into account. Situated NLE provides a perspective and facilitates further research on the generation and evaluation of explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-27T14:14:28Z)
• Revisiting Out-of-distribution Robustness in NLP: Benchmark, Analysis, and LLMs Evaluations [111.88727295707454]
  This paper reexamines the research on out-of-distribution (OOD) robustness in the field of NLP. We propose a benchmark construction protocol that ensures clear differentiation and challenging distribution shifts. We conduct experiments on pre-trained language models for analysis and evaluation of OOD robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T17:47:03Z)
• KNOW How to Make Up Your Mind! Adversarially Detecting and Alleviating Inconsistencies in Natural Language Explanations [52.33256203018764]
  We leverage external knowledge bases to significantly improve on an existing adversarial attack for detecting inconsistent NLEs. We show that models with higher NLE quality do not necessarily generate fewer inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-05T15:51:58Z)
• Benchmarking Faithfulness: Towards Accurate Natural Language Explanations in Vision-Language Tasks [0.0]
  Natural language explanations (NLEs) promise to enable the communication of a model's decision-making in an easily intelligible way. While current models successfully generate convincing explanations, it is an open question how well the NLEs actually represent the reasoning process of the models. We propose three faithfulness metrics: Attribution-Similarity, NLE-Sufficiency, and NLE-Comprehensiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-03T08:24:10Z)
• Compositional Exemplars for In-context Learning [21.961094715261133]
  Large pretrained language models (LMs) have shown impressive In-Context Learning (ICL) ability. We propose CEIL (Compositional Exemplars for In-context Learning) to model the interaction between the given input and in-context examples. We validate CEIL on 12 classification and generation datasets from 7 distinct NLP tasks, including sentiment analysis, paraphrase detection, natural language inference, commonsense reasoning, open-domain question answering, code generation, and semantic parsing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-11T14:02:08Z)

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.