# Self-Rationalization in the Wild: A Large Scale Out-of-Distribution Evaluation on NLI-related tasks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.04797 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.04797/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 64 of its 80 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Feb 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 64)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.13461/) (2019)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.07461/) (2018)
- [A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1508.05326/) (2015)
- [FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05355/) (2018)
- [On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00661/) (2020)
- [Right for the Wrong Reasons: Diagnosing Syntactic Heuristics in Natural Language Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.01007/) (2019)
- [An Empirical Study of Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Models During Continual Fine-tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08747/) (2023)
- [OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00838/) (2024)
- [Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.12840/) (2019)
- [Fact or Fiction: Verifying Scientific Claims](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.14974/) (2020)
- [LESS: Selecting Influential Data for Targeted Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04333/) (2024)
- [ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.03429/) (2019)
- [Dolma: an Open Corpus of Three Trillion Tokens for Language Model Pretraining Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00159/) (2024)
- [e-SNLI: Natural Language Inference with Natural Language Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1812.01193/) (2018)
- [Dataset Cartography: Mapping and Diagnosing Datasets with Training Dynamics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.10795/) (2020)
- [Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.03891/) (2019)
- [Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summaries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04228/) (2020)
- [NLP Evaluation in trouble: On the Need to Measure LLM Data Contamination for each Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.18018/) (2023)
- [Hypothesis Only Baselines in Natural Language Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.01042/) (2018)
- [UL2: Unifying Language Learning Paradigms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.05131/) (2022)
- [Selective Annotation Makes Language Models Better Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.01975/) (2022)
- [Get Your Vitamin C! Robust Fact Verification with Contrastive Evidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.08541/) (2021)
- [Evaluating the Logical Reasoning Ability of ChatGPT and GPT-4](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03439/) (2023)
- [CLIMATE-FEVER: A Dataset for Verification of Real-World Climate Claims](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.00614/) (2020)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Honey, I Shrunk the Language Model: Impact of Knowledge Distillation Methods on Performance and Explainability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.16056/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Free-text explanations are expressive and easy to understand, but many datasets lack annotated explanation data, making it challenging to train models for explainable predictions. To address this, we investigate how to use existing explanation datasets for self-rationalization and evaluate models' out-of-distribution (OOD) performance. 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. The models are evaluated on 19 diverse OOD datasets across three tasks: natural language inference (NLI), fact-checking, and hallucination detection in abstractive summarization. For the generated explanation evaluation, we conduct a human study on 13 selected models and study its correlation with the Acceptability score (T5-11B) and three other LLM-based reference-free metrics. Human evaluation shows that the Acceptability score correlates most strongly with human judgments, demonstrating its effectiveness in evaluating free-text explanations. Our findings reveal: 1) few annotated examples effectively adapt models for OOD explanation generation; 2) compared to sample selection strategies, fine-tuning data source has a larger impact on OOD performance; and 3) models with higher label prediction accuracy tend to produce better explanations, as reflected by higher Acceptability scores.