mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Free-text Rationale Generation under Readability Level Control

arXiv 2407.01384 ↗First posted 1 Jul 2024cs.CLcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Free-text rationales justify model decisions in natural language and thus become likable and accessible among approaches to explanation across many tasks. However, their effectiveness can be hindered by misinterpretation and hallucination. As a perturbation test, we investigate how large language models (LLMs) perform rationale generation under the effects of readability level control, i.e., being prompted for an explanation targeting a specific expertise level, such as sixth grade or college. We find that explanations are adaptable to such instruction, though the observed distinction between readability levels does not fully match the defined complexity scores according to traditional readability metrics. Furthermore, the generated rationales tend to feature medium level complexity, which correlates with the measured quality using automatic metrics. Finally, our human annotators confirm a generally satisfactory impression on rationales at all readability levels, with high-school-level readability being most commonly perceived and favored.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jul 2024.

Builds on

29 of 58 references.

References · 29

  1. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
  2. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  3. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
  4. 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 865
  5. 2019Plug and Play Language Models: A Simple Approach to Controlled Text Generationcited by 793
  6. 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 651
  7. 2023Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Studycited by 420
  8. 2020HateXplain: A Benchmark Dataset for Explainable Hate Speech Detectioncited by 403
  9. 2020A Survey on Neural Network Interpretabilitycited by 291
  10. 2023OpenChat: Advancing Open-source Language Models with Mixed-Quality Datacited by 250
  11. 2022The Unreliability of Explanations in Few-shot Prompting for Textual Reasoningcited by 169
  12. 2020Measuring Association Between Labels and Free-Text Rationalescited by 159
17 more
  1. 2020A Theory of Usable Information Under Computational Constraintscited by 153
  2. 2023Faithfulness Tests for Natural Language Explanationscited by 107
  3. 2020Leakage-Adjusted Simulatability: Can Models Generate Non-Trivial Explanations of Their Behavior in Natural Language?cited by 95
  4. 2023Can Large Language Models Explain Themselves? A Study of LLM-Generated Self-Explanationscited by 90
  5. 2019Automated Rationale Generation: A Technique for Explainable AI and its Effects on Human Perceptionscited by 81
  6. 2023ReCEval: Evaluating Reasoning Chains via Correctness and Informativenesscited by 76
  7. 2021Conditional probing: measuring usable information beyond a baselinecited by 61
  8. 2018Visualizing the Feature Importance for Black Box Modelscited by 55
  9. 2023Are Machine Rationales (Not) Useful to Humans? Measuring and Improving Human Utility of Free-Text Rationalescited by 37
  10. 2023HealthFC: Verifying Health Claims with Evidence-Based Medical Fact-Checkingcited by 35
  11. 2020Elaborative Simplification: Content Addition and Explanation Generation in Text Simplificationcited by 27
  12. 2023Generating Summaries with Controllable Readability Levelscited by 24
  13. 2023Know Your Audience: Do LLMs Adapt to Different Age and Education Levels?cited by 16
  14. 2024Generating Educational Materials with Different Levels of Readability using LLMscited by 9
  15. 2022Uniform Complexity for Text Generationcited by 4
  16. 2024Do LLMs Implicitly Determine the Suitable Text Difficulty for Users?cited by 4
  17. 2024RORA: Robust Free-Text Rationale Evaluationcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 2.

4 papers.