Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2305.07095

Are Machine Rationales (Not) Useful to Humans? Measuring and Improving Human Utility of Free-Text Rationales

Brihi Joshi·Ziyi Liu·Sahana Ramnath·Aaron Chan·Zhewei Tong·Shaoliang Nie·Qifan Wang·Yejin Choi·Xiang Ren
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Among the remarkable emergent capabilities of large language models (LMs) is free-text rationalization; beyond a certain scale, large LMs are capable of generating seemingly useful rationalizations, which in turn, can dramatically enhance their performances on leaderboards. This phenomenon raises a question: can machine generated rationales also be useful for humans, especially when lay humans try to answer questions based on those machine rationales? We observe that human utility of existing rationales is far from satisfactory, and expensive to estimate with human studies. Existing metrics like task performance of the LM generating the rationales, or similarity between generated and gold rationales are not good indicators of their human utility. While we observe that certain properties of rationales like conciseness and novelty are correlated with their human utility, estimating them without human involvement is challenging. We show that, by estimating a rationale's helpfulness in answering similar unseen instances, we can measure its human utility to a better extent. We also translate this finding into an automated score, GEN-U, that we propose, which can help improve LMs' ability to generate rationales with better human utility, while maintaining most of its task performance. Lastly, we release all code and collected data with this project.

Explore related subjects

cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Brihi Joshi, Ziyi Liu, Sahana Ramnath, Aaron Chan, Zhewei Tong, Shaoliang Nie, Qifan Wang, Yejin Choi, Xiang Ren. 2023-05-11. Are Machine Rationales (Not) Useful to Humans? Measuring and Improving Human Utility of Free-Text Rationales. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07095

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

MultiViewDx: Evidence-Linked Multi-View Clinical Diagnosis

Medical multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can perform well on existing medical visual question answering (MedVQA) benchmarks, but their training data often does not match clinical diagnosis. Most supervision is organized around isolated images or short QA pairs, leaving two structures weakly specified: how evidence leads to a decision, and how views, series, modalities, and patient context from the same case are linked. We introduce MultiViewDx, a partly physician-validated multimodal instruction dataset for evidence-linked multi-view medical imaging diagnosis. MultiViewDx uses the clinical case as the supervision unit. It links imaging studies with patient context, normalizes heterogeneous reports into an evidence-linked workflow (evidence -> findings -> differential discussion -> diagnosis), and uses a unified image-text retriever to constrain instruction synthesis to source-supported evidence. It covers X-ray, CT, MRI, ultrasound, histopathology, and other clinical visual sources. We fine-tune MultiViewDx-8B-AN and evaluate it on both existing MedVQA benchmarks and real-world case-based diagnostic reasoning. Across four MedVQA benchmarks, it achieves the best average accuracy among compared systems (79.0%), outperforming HuatuoGPT-Vision-34B (66.7%) and Claude3-Opus (55.7%). Beyond MedVQA, on JAMA Clinical Challenge cases, it receives the strongest overall rating under a physician-designed rubric for key clinical points, diagnostic inference, and evidence grounding. Controlled ablations and clinician evaluation show that both case-level multi-view organization and evidence-linked reasoning targets contribute to the gain.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Foundations of Large Language Models

This is a book about large language models. As indicated by the title, it primarily focuses on foundational concepts rather than comprehensive coverage of all cutting-edge technologies. The book is structured into six main chapters, each exploring a key area: pre-training, generative models, prompting, alignment, inference, and reasoning. It is intended for college students, professionals, and practitioners in natural language processing and related fields, and can serve as a reference for anyone interested in large language models.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Interactive In-Meeting Speaker Correction with Human Feedback

Most automatic speech processing systems operate in ``open loop'' mode without user feedback about who said what, yet human-in-the-loop workflows can potentially enable higher accuracy. We propose an LLM-assisted in-meeting speaker correction system that lets users fix speaker attribution errors through brief corrective feedback. After performing streaming ASR and diarization, the system presents concise LLM-generated summaries to help users identify important speaker errors, and it incorporates user feedback by updating the speaker-attributed transcript and adding online speaker enrollments. To make this workflow effective despite errors in speech processing, LLM analysis, and user feedback, we developed several mechanisms to identify the intended correction more precisely. Further, we built an LLM-driven user feedback simulation to evaluate the workflow reprodubilty and at scale. Applied to the AMI headset test set, our system substantially reduces the DER from a streaming baseline (Google ASR + ECAPA) by 31.99% and speaker substitution error by 52.68%. Results of a pilot usability study suggest several avenues to improve the user experience.

cs.CL↗