FRAME: Evaluating Rationale-Label Consistency Metrics for Free-Text Rationales
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Following how humans communicate, free-text rationales aim to use natural language to explain neural language model (LM) behavior. However, free-text rationales' unconstrained nature makes them prone to hallucination, so it is important to have metrics for free-text rationale quality. Existing free-text rationale metrics measure how consistent the rationale is with the LM's predicted label, but there is no protocol for assessing such metrics' reliability. Thus, we propose FRAME, a framework for evaluating rationale-label consistency (RLC) metrics for free-text rationales. FRAME is based on three axioms: (1) good metrics should yield highest scores for reference rationales, which maximize RLC by construction; (2) good metrics should be appropriately sensitive to semantic perturbation of rationales; and (3) good metrics should be robust to variation in the LM's task performance. Across three text classification datasets, we show that existing RLC metrics cannot satisfy all three FRAME axioms, since they are implemented via model pretraining which muddles the metric's signal. Then, we introduce a non-pretraining RLC metric that greatly outperforms baselines on (1) and (3), while performing competitively on (2). Finally, we discuss the limitations of using RLC to evaluate free-text rationales.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jul 2022.
Builds on
27 of 32 references.
References · 27
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,350
- 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,056
- 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,454
- 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
- 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 590
- 2019ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Modelscited by 523
- 2018e-SNLI: Natural Language Inference with Natural Language Explanationscited by 468
- 2018A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networkscited by 467
- 2019Explain Yourself! Leveraging Language Models for Commonsense Reasoningcited by 367
15 more
- 2020Evaluating Explainable AI: Which Algorithmic Explanations Help Users Predict Model Behavior?cited by 189
- 2018Multimodal Explanations: Justifying Decisions and Pointing to the Evidencecited by 179
- 2020Measuring Association Between Labels and Free-Text Rationalescited by 159
- 2020WT5?! Training Text-to-Text Models to Explain their Predictionscited by 148
- 2020NILE : Natural Language Inference with Faithful Natural Language Explanationscited by 96
- 2020Leakage-Adjusted Simulatability: Can Models Generate Non-Trivial Explanations of Their Behavior in Natural Language?cited by 95
- 2020Evaluating Explanations: How much do explanations from the teacher aid students?cited by 94
- 2018Faithful Multimodal Explanation for Visual Question Answeringcited by 64
- 2018Towards Explainable NLP: A Generative Explanation Framework for Text Classificationcited by 55
- 2014Extraction of Salient Sentences from Labelled Documentscited by 50
- 2021Discretized Integrated Gradients for Explaining Language Modelscited by 45
- 2019Do Human Rationales Improve Machine Explanations?cited by 33
- 2021UNIREX: A Unified Learning Framework for Language Model Rationale Extractioncited by 32
- 2020e-SNLI-VE: Corrected Visual-Textual Entailment with Natural Language Explanationscited by 30
- 2020FiD-Ex: Improving Sequence-to-Sequence Models for Extractive Rationale Generationcited by 21
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 3; 2024: 2; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
10 papers.
- 2023Are Machine Rationales (Not) Useful to Humans? Measuring and Improving Human Utility of Free-Text Rationalescited by 37
- 2023Explain-then-Translate: An Analysis on Improving Program Translation with Self-generated Explanationscited by 12
- 2025A Causal Lens for Evaluating Faithfulness Metricscited by 12
- 2025ConSim: Measuring Concept-Based Explanations' Effectiveness with Automated Simulatabilitycited by 9
- 2024RORA: Robust Free-Text Rationale Evaluationcited by 4
- 2023Few Shot Rationale Generation using Self-Training with Dual Teacherscited by 3
- 2022KNIFE: Distilling Reasoning Knowledge From Free-Text Rationalescited by 1
- 2024Scenarios and Approaches for Situated Natural Language Explanationscited by 1
- 2022Accountable and Explainable Methods for Complex Reasoning over Textcited by 0
- 2026Limitations of Automated Simulatability: LLM Simulators Can Bypass Explanationscited by 0
- 2026Limitations of Automated Simulatability: LLM Simulators Can Bypass Explanations8 Sep 2026
- 2025A Causal Lens for Evaluating Faithfulness Metrics26 Feb 2025
- 2025ConSim: Measuring Concept-Based Explanations' Effectiveness with Automated Simulatability10 Jan 2025
- 2024Scenarios and Approaches for Situated Natural Language Explanations7 Jun 2024
- 2024RORA: Robust Free-Text Rationale Evaluation28 Feb 2024
- 2023Explain-then-Translate: An Analysis on Improving Program Translation with Self-generated Explanations13 Nov 2023
- 2023Few Shot Rationale Generation using Self-Training with Dual Teachers5 Jun 2023
- 2023Are Machine Rationales (Not) Useful to Humans? Measuring and Improving Human Utility of Free-Text Rationales11 May 2023
- 2022KNIFE: Distilling Reasoning Knowledge From Free-Text Rationales19 Dec 2022
- 2022Accountable and Explainable Methods for Complex Reasoning over Text9 Nov 2022