Rationales

Modern recommendation systems largely infer user preferences from implicit behaviors such as clicks, watch time, and negative feedback, but these signals reveal what users do rather than why they like or dislike content. This work studies articulated user rationales (AURs), i.e., users' natural-language explanations of their preferences, as a new class of polarity-aware and reason-level textual signals for recommendation. Despite their potential value, AURs are difficult to use in industrial systems because they are naturally sparse, often low-quality, and only cover a small fraction of items. We present SARA (Scaling Articulated Rationales), an industrial framework that turns sparse AURs into scalable recommendation signals. SARA first builds a data engine that elicits and curates AURs from 240M Kuaishou Live users, producing SARA-HQ, a quality-controlled and author-centric rationale dataset. It then aligns a general-purpose MLLM into SARA-7B through large-scale SFT and Quality-Refining DPO, extending rationale generation from 86,564 AUR-covered authors to the full 10M-author space. Finally, SARA-Ranker integrates the generated positive and negative rationales into production ranking via rationale-aware interaction modeling and rejection-memory modeling. Extensive offline evaluation, human calibration, and online A/B tests show that SARA-7B generates more specific, polarity-consistent, and grounded rationales than strong MLLM baselines, while SARA-Ranker improves engagement and reduces negative feedback in production. Deployed with daily refresh for over 30 days, SARA establishes articulated rationales as a practical, first-class textual signal for industrial recommendation systems.

Large language models can easily generate explanations for their own outputs, but such self-explanations are not necessarily faithful to the model's behavior. We study this issue through counterfactual self-explanations, where a model minimally edits an input so that its own prediction changes. Across sentiment analysis and natural language inference, we evaluate ten instruction-tuned models from the LLaMA-3 and Qwen-2.5 families, measuring faithfulness, minimality, and alignment with human-annotated rationales. Our results show that model scale is the strongest determinant of explanation quality: larger models are substantially more likely to generate counterfactuals that flip their own predictions and target decision-relevant evidence. In contrast, the rationale-guided condition produces edit-minimal counterfactuals that are also more human-aligned. However, it does not consistently improve faithfulness. Overall, counterfactual self-explanations can provide useful behavioral evidence about model decisions, but their reliability depends strongly on model capacity and should be empirically validated rather than assumed.

CounterFactual Examples (CFEs) are a cornerstone of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), offering local, post hoc, and model-agnostic explanations by identifying minimal input modifications that alter a model's prediction. Yet, in order to be intelligible, these modifications must also be semantically meaningful to the explainee. This paper proposes to integrate knowledge expressed as a fuzzy linguistic vocabulary to represent the explainee's perception and interpretation of the data. The domain induced by this fuzzy vocabulary imposes structural constraints that make the features dependent, preventing the use of gradient-based optimisation methods for CFE generation, e.g., DiCE. The paper proposes a continuous data embedding in this linguistic domain and exploits it to define a variant of DiCE that allows personalisation for the explainee, named DiCEf. As illustrated by experimental results on a real-world dataset, this extension of the DiCE method enables the generation of CFEs that are linguistically perceptible while preserving cost minimality, sparsity, and diversity.

Language models fine-tuned on customer behavior can predict outcomes and generate explanations, but these readouts are often treated as interchangeable. Holding model checkpoint and prompt content fixed, we compare probabilities obtained by scoring answer tokens with predictions generated after a written rationale. Across 13 model-domain cells covering four retail tasks in three markets, including two using fully public data and checkpoints, the scored readout ranks outcomes more accurately in 12 of 13 cells (two-sided sign test, p approximately 0.003), by 1.5 to 14.5 points in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Paired bootstrap confidence intervals exclude zero in every newly measured cell. The gap varies with task-specific supervision and mismatch between training and serving formats, ranging from -2.2 points for an untuned base model to +13.7 for rationale-format supervision. Analysis of approximately 9,000 rationales identifies two correlates: reduced reliance on the dominant predictive feature and convergence on stock formulations. Probability saturation does not track the gap. A third readout, eliciting a probability before any verdict, improves calibration (Brier score from 0.47 to 0.15) while ranking within noise of scoring, but only for outcome rates represented in training; it is worse than scoring when the scored head is already calibrated. We interpret these differences through the objectives matched by each readout, identify training choices that narrow the gap, and propose retaining generated rationales while sourcing ranking from the scored head.

Medical question-answering datasets often contain answer labels, whereas high-quality rationales remain scarce, noisy, or costly to validate. This changes the acquisition question: rather than asking which questions should be labeled, we ask which already-labeled questions should receive rationale supervision under a fixed token budget. We study an offline version of this problem in which candidate rationales are visible to the selector but withheld from downstream training unless selected. We propose root-mean-square Robustness-based Sample Prioritization (RMS-RSP), which perturbs hidden states only at rationale tokens and measures the resulting shift in the gold-versus-best-distractor margin. Across five medical QA datasets, MedGemma-4B-IT, three training seeds, ten budgeted non-RSP selectors, and an unbudgeted full-supervision reference, RMS-RSP provides a deliberately qualified result. Its locked-budget accuracy is 60.61% on average versus 60.08% for Random, with a statistically resolved gain only on AfriMed-QA (+1.44 points). Its full-budget accuracy area is not better than Random. However, after three answer-option reorderings, RMS-RSP improves robust accuracy and semantic consistency by 1.91 and 2.85 points on average, respectively, with the same direction on all five datasets. Training on every pool rationale raises macro accuracy to 63.74%, but consumes 29--254 times more rationale tokens and does not uniformly improve robustness. These findings do not establish universal accuracy gains; they instead suggest that rationale-local boundary sensitivity can identify supervision that improves invariance to semantically equivalent formatting changes.

Accountability means a decision can be examined, justified, and contested. LLMs make this hard: fluent output may be ungrounded, incomplete, or unfaithful to the decision process. Achieving accountability requires verified rationales (how was the decision reached), assumptions (what was assumed rather than known), policy consistency (the same treatment for the same facts), and pivotal conditions (what would change the outcome). We introduce self-faithfulness as an automatic test of accountability: changing the pivotal conditions should change the decision. We examine accountable AI through clinical trial matching, a high-stakes task central to evidence-based medicine. Although LLM-based matchers match patients to trials reasonably accurately, they apply decision policies inconsistently and produce rationales that are unfaithful to their own decisions. We introduce VERDICT, an LLM-based agent that translates a decision task, its constraints, and its policy into Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT), then derives the decision with SMT and MaxSMT solvers -- so policies are applied consistently and decisions are accountable by construction. Across a SIGIR 2016-derived dataset and TREC 2021, VERDICT achieves the strongest decision accuracy among LLM-only and neurosymbolic baselines, applies policies with perfect consistency, and produces clinician-preferred rationales grounded in explicit assumptions and pivotal conditions, with improved counterfactual self-faithfulness.

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are widely used in explainable artificial intelligence (AI) to show how a model's outputs would change if the input features were manipulated. This technique is used for a range of tasks such as debugging models, explaining predictions, justifying decisions, and providing algorithmic recourse. In this paper, we explore the normative legitimacy of employing counterfactuals in real-life model deployment settings. We discuss the different stakes involved in these different purposes for which CEs are commonly employed, and find stricter requirements for justification and recourse. In particular, we find that naive application of CEs for justification and recourse can lead to ignoring contestable choices made throughout the machine learning (ML) pipeline, thus obfuscating that decisions and counterfactuals for those decisions are also artifacts of an organization's materialized design and governance choices. We demonstrate this with four empirical experiments involving interventions at stages of the ML pipeline ``upstream" of the explanation itself, and show that these affect the generated counterfactuals. We find that an organization's choices on measurement models for feature and labels, business requirements, model validation, and the metric of model success have as much or more impact on the generated counterfactuals as the specifics of the generating method. Our findings underline the need to account for such choices upon providing justification and recourse, providing a stark reminder of the relational nature of these tasks. As putative justifications or recourse recommendations, CEs do not provide adequate answers to some important "why"-questions because they preclude consideration of whether the decision-maker ought to have acted differently.

Next-basket repurchase recommendation is commonly formulated as a ranking task: given a customer's purchase history, the system ranks previously purchased items that may be needed again. In production settings, however, ranking accuracy is only one component of recommendation quality. Customers may also benefit from concise evidence about why an item is recommended now. Large language models (LLMs) offer a potential way to surface such evidence through feature-based, human-readable rationales grounded in interpretable behavioral signals. We construct repurchase features spanning cadence, frequency, recency, user behavior, and item popularity, and evaluate LLMs on two public grocery datasets and one proprietary retail dataset. We investigate (1) whether off-the-shelf LLMs can use these features as next-basket scorers relative to heuristic and supervised rankers, and (2) whether LLM-cited features carry outcome-grounded ranking signal. For the latter, we compare LLM-cited features with model-specific attribution methods under a cross-model feature-masking protocol that measures ranking degradation after masking selected features. Our results show that LLM scores are not competitive with supervised rankers, suggesting that off-the-shelf LLMs should not be used as standalone repurchase recommenders. However, changes in prompt and evidence representation can improve outcome-grounded feature-masking results in some settings even when ranking performance does not improve; the effect is dataset-dependent and does not consistently match attribution baselines. These findings suggest a practical role for LLMs as validated explanation components rather than primary rankers, with rationale quality evaluated separately from ranking accuracy.

Instruction-tuned language models achieve strong performance across a range of generation tasks, but have also recently been shown to exhibit verbalized overconfidence. In question answering, verbalized model overconfidence may be associated with the consistency of the generated supporting rationales. In this paper, we study whether corresponding changes in the lexical diversity of generated answer rationales accompany changes in model confidence induced by instruction tuning. We evaluate three matched base and instruction-tuned models across question-answering benchmarks and find that instruction tuning consistently alters answer confidence, despite limited changes in predictive accuracy and decreases in likelihood-based calibration. Secondly, we observe a non-uniform effect of instruction tuning on rationale diversity: cross-rationale diversity consistently decreases, whereas surface-level lexical diversity varies in both direction and magnitude across models and benchmarks. Finally, we find that these differences persist after controlling for answer selection and rationale length, confirming that confidence and rationale diversity capture distinct effects of instruction tuning.

Normative datasets are often used to train and align AI systems, but the norms they contain can function as action-guiding patterns rather than neutral moral knowledge. We propose treating the AI system as a proxy actor and test whether dataset-level norms can shift it away from its baseline safety behavior when it faces high-conflict dilemmas. We make three contributions. First, we demonstrate in controlled experiments that norm-breaking fine-tuning yields norm-divergent actions justified by self-interested rationales, suggesting a systematic shift in patterns of justification. Second, we establish a practical audit trail linking downstream justifications to upstream norms using mixed methods. Third, we show that system prompts can both suppress and elicit these patterns. We conducted experiments on three models (LLaMA-3.2-11B, Qwen-3.5-9B, and Pixtral-12B) using Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) fine-tuning on Social Chemistry 101 Fairness/Cheating (norm-following vs. norm-breaking) with prompt steering. Across all three models, we find that norm-breaking fine-tuning shifts the model's default rationale style from safety compliance to instrumental self-interest, whereas system prompts can override this behavior. Our results support a distributed view of alignment in which observed behavior depends jointly on training data, fine-tuning, and prompting, motivating norm-aware documentation and rationale logging for contestable oversight.

Reasoning in large language models (LLMs) is often grounded in human text, human demonstrations, and human-generated rationales. For equilibrium reasoning in complex games, however, relying on human data can be suboptimal. In fact, human play is often guided by intuition and heuristics and can deviate substantially from game equilibrium. This discrepancy is amplified in games with mixed-strategy equilibria, where human data is heavily biased toward pure strategies. Consequently, conditioning LLMs on this data yields weak game strategies. To grant LLMs the reasoning capacity in games, in this work, we study how to elicit equilibrium play using solver output. We propose Mixed-Strategy Decision Tree (MDT), which articulates the silent optimality of the equilibrium into sparse strategic rules that both humans and LLMs could understand. Using solver output rather than human annotation allows us to extend the input to arbitrarily new states and continuations. We instantiate this study on No-Limit Texas Hold'em by querying a solver oracle for over \textbf{250 million mixed-strategy decisions}; MDT together with other techniques \textbf{reduces the $\ell_1$ distance to the equilibrium by $52.6\%$} across $8$ different LLM configurations. A Route-only ablation tests the incremental contribution of the shadow-based contrast, while complete River-endgame and Liar's Dice experiments evaluate strategic fidelity and portability beyond the original NLH communication setting.

Large language models are increasingly used as social simulators, including as synthetic survey respondents. Most evaluations ask whether simulated outcomes resemble human outcomes. We argue that this is necessary but too weak: a simulator can match the final answer while using the wrong rationale-derived reason pattern. We study this problem through a 94-person sunscreen concept test in which each respondent evaluated three product concepts and wrote open-ended rationales. We map those rationales into signed reason states $Z$, where positive signs support adoption and negative signs block it. This gives a practical audit: holding respondent descriptors $D$, category context $K$, and concept treatment $X$ fixed, do human rationale-derived reasons help predict behavior $Y$, and can an LLM simulate the same reason state without seeing the human rationale or outcome? Human rationale-derived reasons substantially improve held-out prediction of purchase intent. LLM-simulated reasons are more brittle: they often sound plausible, but frequently echo the concept board rather than recover the respondent's acceptance or rejection path. The paper contributes an evaluation framework for social simulators. Reason states do not identify natural causal effects by themselves, but they provide an interpretable test of whether a simulator's stated reasons align with human evidence.

Understanding and complying with traffic regulations is a safety-critical requirement for autonomous driving, yet remains challenging due to the diversity and context dependence of traffic signage. Importantly, regulation understanding is not a simple recognition task, but a reasoning problem: whether a rule applies depends on interpreting the sign in relation to the spatial layout of lanes and scene context. To support such reasoning, MapDR provide fine-grained annotations that link each traffic sign's regulatory rules to the specific lanes they govern. Existing methods, however, largely treat this as direct sequence prediction, ignoring the underlying reasoning that connects sign semantics and map structure. To address this limitation, we explicitly incorporate reasoning into this task and propose a framework that equips vision-language models (VLMs) with chain-of-thought (CoT) capabilities. We first design a scalable CoT curation pipeline that bootstraps rationales from a strong LLM through a two-round strategy and employs a VLM-based verifier to filter out incorrect cases, yielding a high-quality set of (CoT, answer) pairs. Building on this foundation, we adopt a two-stage training scheme: supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to teach rationale-to-answer generation, followed by GRPO reinforcement learning with answer-grounded, fine-grained rewards to further improve final answer accuracy. Extensive experiments on MapDR show that our approach significantly improves both interpretability and accuracy, establishing the first reasoning-based framework for regulation-aware autonomous driving.

Detecting media bias automatically is difficult because biased framing is often subtle, yet in domains such as news analysis, accurate predictions alone are insufficient without explanations that reflect the model's underlying reasoning. We present a multi-dimensional evaluation of explainability in encoder-based media bias detection using the Bias Annotations By Experts (BABE) dataset. Specifically, we study BERT and RoBERTa as classifiers (base and large variants) along three complementary axes: predictive performance, explanation plausibility (token-level alignment with expert rationales), and mechanistic faithfulness (whether compact sets of attention heads recover predictive signal under counterfactual rationale masking). To induce variation in plausibility, we additionally investigate attention-supervised finetuning, which incorporates expert rationale annotations as an auxiliary training signal. Attention supervision serves as an intervention on attribution plausibility, while the effectiveness of attribution methods varies substantially across architectures. Circuit analysis further reveals substantial variation in mechanistic recoverability across architectures, suggesting that model scale alone does not determine circuit compressibility. Taken together, our findings suggest that predictive performance, attribution plausibility, and mechanistic faithfulness characterize different aspects of model behavior and should be evaluated separately when studying explainability in media bias detection.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate natural language explanations that rationalize their own decisions, a phenomenon commonly referred to as self-explanations. Such explanations have emerged as a promising direction for explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), particularly for interpreting LLM behavior. However, while self-explanations often appear plausible, whether they faithfully reflect a model's underlying reasoning process remains an open question. In this opinion paper, we argue that self-explanations can be highly plausible, questionably faithful, and yet highly actionable. From a traditional XAI perspective, we identify the limitations of standard evaluation protocols for LLM-generated self-explanations and propose practical guidelines for assessing their plausibility and faithfulness. Moreover, we argue that evaluation should extend beyond these criteria to actionability, highlighting applications of LLM rationalization capabilities that support informed decision-making and appropriate action across diverse stakeholders.

Financial question answering over hybrid tabular and textual data may require multi-source reasoning and precise numerical computation. While large language models (LLMs) can generate intermediate reasoning steps, natural-language rationales remain prone to arithmetic errors, making them an unreliable supervision source for distillation. Building on programmatic distillation, we develop an approach that transfers reliable numerical reasoning from a large teacher model to a compact student using execution-verified Python programs instead of free-form textual rationales. It leverages gold derivations to guide teacher-side program synthesis and retains only programs that execute correctly and produce the gold answer, ensuring high-quality supervision. We further introduce an iterative recovery stage that revisits teacher-failed examples, enabling the student to recover and incorporate newly verified programs into training. Experiments on TAT-QA show that our framework is highly effective for hybrid financial reasoning. Our best 7B student achieves 87.00 EM / 87.18 F1 on the test set, substantially outperforming the 72B teacher (78.46 EM) as well as traditional and strong LLM-based baselines, including TAGOP and TAT-LLM. These results demonstrate that execution-verified programmatic distillation provides an effective and extensible framework for training smaller models to perform reliable numerical reasoning.

Live sports commentary is grounded generation under a deadline: statements concern real, named athletes, the grounding state changes every few seconds, and no reference text exists at generation time. We present Pitwall, a production system that generates natural-language Formula 1 strategy briefings in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, treating faithfulness as an architectural property rather than an aspiration: every published sentence is decomposed into typed factual claims (positions, gaps, tyres, pace, overtakes, race control) and each claim is verified against the probabilistic race state that prompted it. The same verifier gates the fine-tuning data: of 3,045 model-written targets, only the 81.9% whose every claim is state-supported are retained, the rest falling back to a provably faithful template, so the generator never sees an ungrounded target. Verification is meaningful because of the grounding substrate: a vectorized Monte Carlo engine (N=2,000 per-lap race continuations) calibrated on 126 races (2018-2024) and validated on fully held-out 2025-2026 seasons (winner-in-top-3 90.3% over 155 backtests; held-out Brier 0.0745). A recurring finding spans both halves of the system: virtues trade off and must be gated separately. In simulation, calibration-optimal is not decision-optimal; in generation, fine-tuning on richer targets buys vividness that collapses into hallucination when the grounding state is sparse -- a failure a four-base replication traces to base-model instruction adherence, not scale, and that sparse-context auditing removes from the production model. End-to-end operation -- live timing to verified trilingual briefings -- was confirmed at two consecutive live Grands Prix (Austria and Britain, 2026); at Silverstone a timestamped probability trace, committed to disk before the outcome was known, locked onto the eventual winner ten laps before the flag.

Explanations for emotion classifiers are usually produced post hoc, with no guarantee that they reflect the computation behind the label. We present an explication interface for event-based emotion analysis. A parser maps the input text to an explication, a short script in the closed vocabulary of Natural Semantic Metalanguage organized into twelve typed slots, and a fixed decision list of rules transcribed from published semantic definitions computes the label from the explication alone. The faithfulness guarantee is therefore causal and definitional, while all empirical risk lives in the learned parser, which the per-line entailment interface makes auditable against the input. On crowd-sourced event descriptions, our fine-tuned parser reaches 0.33 accuracy and 0.48 selective accuracy on a small held-out set, suggesting that the interface trades insignificant accuracy difference to a black-box model for a verifiable, inspectable decision basis for first-person event-based emotion analysis. We also release EmoExpl-1200 with per-line verification metadata and the full rule set.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) improves large language models (LLMs) on difficult reasoning tasks, but it often incurs long natural-language rationales that are poorly aligned with efficient machine reasoning. We propose Communicative Language Symbolism Routing (CLSR), a test-time framework in which multiple LLM agents autonomously invent, evolve, and share compact Language Symbolism Frameworks (LSFs), while a latent-free router adaptively selects and composes these languages per query to optimize the accuracy-token trade-off. Unlike prompt optimization that refines surface instructions, CLSR treats each LSF as a reusable symbolic protocol with compact symbols, usage rules, and a message-passing contract, and improves it through an evolutionary loop driven by correctness and token cost. At inference time, the router may invoke a single low-cost LSF call, ensemble multiple LSFs, or execute a multi-round LSF composition protocol on harder queries. Across challenging benchmarks, CLSR reduces latency-oriented generated token completion by $3\sim 6\times$ compared to standard CoT while maintaining accuracy. We further derive an information-theoretic lower bound on token cost under arbitrary symbolism and show that, under an interpreter-realizability premise, multi-round LSF protocols conditionally subsume program-execution pipelines. Code is publicly available (https://github.com/pzqpzq/LSF_MDia).

Language models can generate plausible rationales for their predictions, but these explanations may not faithfully represent the model's internal reasoning. We propose verifier-coupled reasoning, a framework that inserts inline claims into reasoning traces and trains an auxiliary consistency head to predict programmatic verifier outputs from rationale-span hidden states. The central finding is a gap between decodability and faithfulness: consistency training reliably makes verifier information decodable from rationale representations, but decodability does not guarantee faithful generation. In LeanCheck (formal theorem proving), rationale-only and proof-only pooling achieve perfect directional separation under counterfactual conflict. In KataGo (Go engine), commentary spans encode 10-way win-rate buckets at 81% accuracy. Yet in a code setting, the model achieves 98.6% coupling while its generated explanations remain unfaithful: fluent prose with correct structured claims, but describing unrelated algorithms; a controlled pretrained-vs-from-scratch comparison shows the gap is not capacity-driven. Synthetic activation patching confirms causal influence (73-89% vs. 31% baseline), FEVER reveals that evidence-only pooling isolates genuine evidence sensitivity at the cost of raw accuracy, and per-claim analysis shows that consistency loss disproportionately benefits fine-grained claims over binary ones. These results establish that consistency losses are effective diagnostics and representation-shaping tools, but not sufficient conditions for faithful reasoning.

Algorithmic explanations are intended to help stakeholders understand opaque algorithmic decisions, but in practice, they often fall short. First, the meaning of algorithmic explanations is often not what one might intuitively expect, so expert knowledge is required to interpret them correctly. Second, recent work has shown that popular explanation algorithms are uninformative about the behavior of complex decision functions. Together, these issues create a gap between what explanations appear to convey and what they actually provide. In this work, we propose Explanation Cards for Explanation Algorithms, which augment standard explanations with complementary information about robustness and validity, as well as clear instructions for interpretation. The complementary information can render otherwise uninformative explanations practically useful, while also helping to detect cases where they are not. Importantly, the interpretation instructions in explanation cards shift responsibility from users to providers: Rather than expecting users to recognize what can and cannot be concluded from an explanation, providers must make this explicit upfront. Using counterfactual explanations and SHAP as examples, we demonstrate how providers can construct explanation cards and that these cards provide users with the guidance needed for sound interpretation. We further argue that explanation cards offer a practical means of operationalising the explainability provisions of the EU AI Act. Overall, explanation cards are a significant step toward making explanation algorithms fit for real-world use cases.

Multimodal models can name the action units (AUs) behind a facial emotion, but their AU->emotion rationales are typically plausible rather than faithful: nothing forces the AUs a model invokes to be the AUs that actually drive its prediction. We cast AU->emotion reasoning as a counterfactual-consistency problem between the rationale, the label, and a structural AU->emotion causal graph G, and propose FACR, which grounds the reasoner in an independently induced, polarity-aware G and trains a counterfactual-faithfulness objective: a do-intervention on an AU that G marks causal for a class must move the prediction, while one it marks irrelevant must leave it unchanged. Faithfulness is thereby both trainable and measurable through a matching interventional metric, which we evaluate against a known causal structure, the PSPI pain-AU composition, as no existing affective-reasoning benchmark allows. We are explicit that this metric tests fidelity to the supplied structure rather than its rediscovery: it asks whether the trained reasoner invokes the AUs the structure marks causal, on held-out subjects and a second dataset. Under subject-independent evaluation on UNBC-PAIN, the objective raises the agreement between the invoked AUs and the PSPI composition from a no-objective baseline of 0.08 to 0.57, at a small detection cost; an unfaithfulness control attributes the gain to the objective. On a cross-dataset emotion transfer, the objective likewise raises fidelity to G on a seven-class task (0.50 to 0.84). Finally, we attach a language verbalizer and extend the audit to the generated text: biasing each action unit's emission by its latent activation makes the rationale faithful by construction, so that ablating an AU removes it from the explanation, a property that transfers to a second language-model backbone, whereas a freely generated rationale is unfaithful.

How to define a good explanation is a long-standing philosophical debate which has found recent renewed interest in the context of AI outputs. Explainability is crucial for AI adoption in many contexts, but in order to produce good explanations of AI systems, we must first have an understanding of what good explanations are. In this paper we propose a definition inspired by the notion of counterfactual explanations, however we argue that one must also take into account the interlocutor's prior beliefs in each fact that could be offered in an explanation. We explore the ramifications of this definition for AI explainability and, in particular, why LLM outputs are difficult to produce good explanations for.

Hateful videos have become prevalent on online platforms, highlighting an urgent need for effective detection. However, existing studies primarily focus on binary classification and fail to provide contextual rationales that reveal the implicit meanings behind these judgments, significantly undermining model explainability. To fill this gap, we aim to achieve explainable hateful video detection, enabling models to provide contextual rationales that integrate relevant evidence and logical reasoning alongside decisions. This approach can comprehensively enhance the understanding of video content and the explainability of the decision-making process. We first introduce two datasets, Ex-HateMM and Ex-ImpliHateVid, for explainable hateful video detection. Each dataset provides fine-grained annotations of multimodal harmful elements, along with contextual rationales. We then propose an Information Augmentation and Reasoning Enhancement (IARE) framework designed for explainable detection. The framework employs an information augmentation phase that leverages the multimodal chain-of-thought to integrate harmful elements, thereby enriching rationale evidence. Additionally, IARE incorporates a reasoning enhancement phase, in which Direct Preference Optimization guides the model toward correct reasoning paths and away from incorrect ones, thereby improving the logical coherence of its justifications. We conduct extensive experiments on the two datasets, comparing multiple baselines with our proposed IARE framework. The results demonstrate that IARE achieves state-of-the-art performance while also generating accurate rationales.

Automated L2 speech assessment can assign proficiency labels, but often lacks interpretability. We propose a rubric-guided SpeechLLM for multi-aspect, multi-granular assessment, trained with a hybrid objective combining supervised fine-tuning and Bounded Direct Preference Optimization. The model jointly predicts ordinal labels at the sentence-level (accuracy, fluency, prosody), word/phoneme-level accuracy, and generates a natural-language rationale in the same response. On SpeechOcean762, our approach matches or outperforms single-granularity models while remaining competitive with prior approaches. We analyze rationale reliability along two axes: self-consistency with model predictions and alignment with ground-truth labels, using sentiment consistency (plausibility) and mention-based agreement (faithfulness). Rationales are plausible at the sentence level, but faithfulness degrades at the word/phoneme level: references are sparse and weakly aligned with token-level labels.

Ensuring factuality and interpretability in RAG remains an open and urgent problem. We introduce Contrastive Evidence Rationale Attention (CERA), the first retrieval framework to employ subjectivity-based hard negative selection and inject an evidential inductive bias into contrastive learning through an auxiliary attention alignment loss. CERA fine-tunes a dense retriever using two training objectives: triplet-based contrastive learning and interpretable attention alignment, which supervises CLS-to-token attention using a part-of-speech-weighted masking distribution over human-annotated factual rationales as evidence signals. Experiments on a large corpus of clinical trial reports demonstrate that the subjectivity-based hard negative selection substantially improves retrieval effectiveness compared to both Contriever and hard negative selection baselines. Furthermore, rationale alignment improves faithfulness while maintaining competitive retrieval performance, supporting the hypothesis that attention can serve as a more faithful explanation of model behavior when guided by human rationales. Moving beyond topical similarity, CERA enables the retriever to identify the specific tokens that constitute supporting evidence, promoting more interpretable evidence selection in RAG systems.

Natural-language explanations are often treated as a unified interface for understanding model behavior, but different explanation sources may support simulation in different ways. This paper compares two families of explanations for question answering models: verbalized feature attributions and self-generated rationales. We evaluate them under a shared counterfactual simulation setting, using an LLM judge as predictor and measuring whether it can better predict a model's answers to follow-up questions when given its explanation. Across multiple instruction-tuned models, we analyze how explanation source, verbalization strategy, and feature granularity affect the simulatability of explanations. Our results show that explanation format and granularity affect simulatability: attribution-based explanations and self-generated rationales differ in how much they improve counterfactual prediction, with effects that vary across models and formats.

Explaining why dense retrievers assign high relevance scores remains challenging because retrieval decisions are made through opaque high-dimensional embeddings. Existing explanations often focus on surface signals, such as lexical matches, token alignments, or post-hoc textual rationales, and thus provide limited insight into the latent factors that shape dense retrieval behavior at the embedding level. We propose \textit{Xetrieval}, an embedding-level mechanistic framework for explaining dense retrieval. \textit{Xetrieval} first introduces a lightweight reasoning internalizer that approximates Chain-of-Thought reasoning directly in the embedding space with a single forward pass, enriching sentence embeddings with reasoning-oriented information while avoiding expensive autoregressive generation. It then decomposes these reasoning-enhanced embeddings into sparse, human-interpretable features, each associated with a coherent natural language description. By aggregating sparse feature overlaps across multiple document-side views, \textit{Xetrieval} provides feature-level explanations of individual retrieval decisions. Experiments on diverse retrievers and benchmarks show that \textit{Xetrieval} uncovers coherent interpretable features, yields stronger pair-level intervention effects, and supports task-level feature steering. The project page and source code are available at https://hihiczx.github.io/Xetrieval .

The rapid spread of misinformation on social media platforms has become a formidable challenge. To mitigate its proliferation, Misinformation Detection (MD) has emerged as a critical research topic. Traditional MD approaches based on small models typically perform binary classification through a black-box process. Recently, the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has enabled explainable MD, where models generate rationales that explain their decisions, thereby enhancing transparency. Existing explainable MD methods primarily focus on crafting sophisticated prompts to elicit rationales from off-the-shelf LLMs. In this work, we propose a pipeline to fine-tune a dedicated LLM specifically for explainable MD. Our pipeline begins by collecting large-scale fact-checked articles, and then uses multiple strong LLMs to produce veracity predictions and rationales. To ensure high-quality training data, we leverage a filtering strategy that selects only the correct instances for fine-tuning. While this pipeline is intuitive and prevalent, our experiments reveal that naive filtering based solely on label correctness is insufficient in practice and suffers from two critical limitations: (1) Coarse-grained labels cause insufficient rationales: Rationales filtered solely based on binary labels are insufficient to adequately support their decisions; (2) Over-verification behavior causes unnecessary rationales: Stronger LLMs tend to exhibit over-verification behavior, producing excessively verbose and unnecessary rationales. To address these issues, we introduce LONSREX, a novel data synthesis pipeline to Locate Necessary and Sufficient Rationales for Explainable MD. Specifically, we propose a metric that quantifies the contribution of each verification step to the final prediction, thereby evaluating its necessity and sufficiency. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of LONSREX.

LLMs deployed multilingually are often audited via English explanations for non-English inputs. We evaluate extractive explanations ''where the model identifies input token spans as evidence alongside a generated rationale'' and uncover a systematic trade-off: English-pivot explanations can achieve higher span agreement with human rationales while their evidence becomes less causally grounded in the model's prediction, as measured by both comprehensiveness and sufficiency. Across 3 tasks, 5languages, and 2multilingual LLM families, we find that English explanations frequently produce fluent but loosely anchored rationales, with comprehensiveness degrading by up to 5.7x relative to native-language conditions - even as task accuracy remains stable across settings. For socially nuanced classification, English pivots also fail to preserve pragmatic cues, reducing both faithfulness and span agreement. We recommend auditing explanations in the input language, reporting multi-faceted faithfulness metrics beyond lexical overlap, and treating English rationales as communication summaries rather than faithful decision traces.

India's Right to Information Act, 2005 gives every citizen the right to demand information from public authorities, yet in practice most people cannot make sense of the dense administrative language used in Central Information Commission (CIC) decisions, let alone predict whether an appeal is worth filing. This paper introduces RTI-Bench, a structured dataset of CIC decisions with outcome labels, exemption citations, IRAC-style reasoning components, and procedural timelines. To the best of our knowledge it is the first publicly released structured dataset for Indian RTI administrative decisions. The dataset draws from two sources: 1,218 cases from a publicly available instruction-response corpus (with structured fields added through rule-based extraction), and 298 CIC decision PDFs collected directly from the Commission portal, spanning five commissioners and three document format generations from 2023 to 2026. Label coverage reaches 89% on the instruction-response corpus. For the PDF subset of 239 primary decisions, coverage is 51% in this first release. A random sample of 50 labelled cases was manually reviewed, yielding a label precision of 95.3%. A zero-shot Mistral 7B baseline on 100 cases gives 57.3% accuracy and 37.0% macro-F1 on outcome prediction, well above the majority-class baseline of 14.3% macro-F1. RTI-Bench is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/joyboseroy/rti-bench

Financial institutions increasingly require AI explanations that are persistent, cross-validated across methods, and conversationally accessible to human decision-makers. We present an architecture for human-centered explainable AI in financial sentiment analysis that combines three contributions. First, we treat XAI artifacts -- LIME feature attributions, occlusion-based word importance scores, and saliency heatmaps -- as persistent, searchable objects in distributed S3-compatible storage with structured metadata and natural-language summaries, enabling semantic retrieval over explanation history and automatic index reconstruction after system failures. Second, we enable multi-method explanation triangulation, where a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) assistant compares and synthesizes results from multiple XAI methods applied to the same prediction, allowing users to assess explanation robustness through natural-language dialogue. Third, we evaluate the faithfulness of generated explanations using automated checks over grounding completeness, hallucinated claims, and method-attribution behavior. We demonstrate the architecture on an EXTRA-BRAIN financial sentiment analysis pipeline using FinBERT predictions and present evaluation results showing that constrained prompting reduces hallucination rate by 36% and increases method-attribution citations by 73% compared to naive prompting. We discuss implications for trustworthy, human-centered AI services in regulated financial environments.

Predicting future clinical outcomes from electronic health records (EHR) remains challenging due to the complexity and heterogeneity of patient data. LLMs have shown strong potential for such predictive tasks, yet existing approaches mainly focus on enhancing medical knowledge through distillation or RAG while relying on the model's internal ability to interpret contextual information. In this work, we present ReMedi (Reasoner for Medical Clinical Prediction), a framework for improving clinical outcome prediction from EHR. ReMedi generates rationale-answer pairs using a challenging sample regeneration mechanism for complex clinical questions, which leverages ground-truth answers as hints to enhance reasoning for further fine-tuning and preference tuning. ReMedi integrates ground-truth outcome guidance into the preference data construction loop, regenerating rationale-answer variants. By tuning on these rationale-answer pairs, the model improves its predictive performance. Experiments on multiple EHR prediction tasks demonstrate substantial gains of up to 19.9 percent over state-of-the-art baselines in terms of F1 score, underscoring ReMedi's effectiveness in real-world clinical prediction.

There has been a growing interest in explaining entailments over description logic (DL) knowledge bases. The existing explanation formalisms focus on justifications to explain true axioms, and abductive reasoning to explain missing axioms in a knowledge base. However, these formalisms only point out the reasoning steps behind a (missing) entailment and lack a user-centered approach as they do not consider an inquirer's needs, level of understanding, or prior knowledge. We propose contrastive explanations, aiming at answering "why an axiom P (fact) is true instead of another axiom Q (foil)" over description logic knowledge bases. The motivation arises from the observation that when a user discovers that P has occurred, they are often surprised because they anticipated the occurrence of another similar event Q. Furthermore, individual explanations for "why P" and "why not Q" are unsatisfactory since a user expects to see the difference between P and Q. In this work, we first present formal foundations of contrasting questions and then define contrastive explanations within description logics. To this end, facts include ABox assertions of the form C(x) for a concept C and individual x. Possible foils for such facts are assertions C(y) (contrasting against an individual y), or D(x) (contrasting against a concept D). Additionally, we explore the properties of contrastive explanations in the DL EL and ALC. We also provide an implementation of our definition and an experimental evaluation on KBs of varying sizes.

This position paper argues that LLMs should not yet be credited with decision explanation. This matters because recent work increasingly treats accurate behavioral prediction, plausible rationales, and outcome-conditioned reasoning traces as evidence that LLMs explain why people decide as they do, risking a premature redefinition of what counts as explanatory progress in human decision modeling. We first distinguish three claims with different evidential burdens: decision prediction, rationale generation, and decision explanation. We then argue that the evidence most commonly offered for LLM-based decision accounts directly supports the first two claims, and sometimes explanatory hypothesis generation, but does not distinguish decision explanation from prediction-supportive rationalization. Next, we propose a bridge standard for decision-explanation credit: stronger claims should specify explanatory targets, discriminate against weaker rationalizer alternatives, use target-appropriate process- or intervention-sensitive validation, and bound their scope. We then situate this standard against competing views and related literatures, clarifying why it preserves the value of LLMs as predictors, narrators, and hypothesis generators while resisting premature explanatory credit. We conclude with a principle of credit calibration: LLMs should be credited for the strongest claim their evidence warrants, and no stronger; if adopted, this principle can help turn LLMs from persuasive narrators of decisions into more reliable instruments for discovering, testing, and communicating explanations of human behavior.

Multi-agent debate, where teams of LLMs iteratively exchange rationales and vote on answers, is widely deployed under the assumption that peer review filters hallucinations. Yet the failure dynamics of homogeneous debate remain poorly understood, therefore we report findings from a controlled empirical study of teams of $N{=}10$ homogeneous agents (Qwen2.5-7B, Llama-3.1-8B, Ministral-3-8B) across $R{=}3$ debate rounds on two high-difficulty benchmarks (GSM-Hard and MMLU-Hard). We compare peer debate against isolated self-correction and a stochastic noise control that injects rationales from unrelated problems. We decompose debate failure into three model-dependent pathways: sycophantic conformity, where agents uncritically adopt majority answers (modal adoption up to 85.5%); contextual fragility, where peer rationales destabilize previously correct reasoning (vulnerability rate up to 70.0%); and consensus collapse, where plurality voting discards correct answers already present in the generation pool (oracle gap up to 32.3 percentage points). Ablations over communication density ($K \in \{2,4,9\}$) and sampling temperature ($T \in \{0.4, 0.7\}$) show that conformity reaches high levels at minimal peer exposure ($K{=}2$) and intensifies with greater initial diversity. Across all configurations, debate consumes 2.1-3.4$\times$ more tokens (up to 28,631 tokens per problem) than self-correction for equal or lower accuracy. Our results indicate that, within the 7-8B parameter class, homogeneous teams without structured roles do not benefit from unguided peer exchange, and that isolated self-correction consistently offers a more favorable cost-accuracy tradeoff.

LLM-based financial agents increasingly produce investment rationales before the outcomes needed to evaluate them are observable. This creates a delayed-ground-truth evaluation problem: realized returns remain the eventual arbiter of investment quality, but they arrive too late and are too noisy to guide many model-development and governance decisions. LLM judges offer a tempting shortcut for pre-deployment evaluation of AI-finance systems, but unvalidated judges may reward verbosity, confidence, or rubric mimicry rather than financial judgment. This paper introduces ValueBlindBench, a preregistered agreement-gated stress-test protocol for deciding when LLM-judged investment-rationale claims are publishable, qualified, or invalid. In a controlled market-state capital-allocation prototype with 1,000 honest decision cycles and 100 preregistered adversarial controls (1,100 trajectories, 5,500 judge calls), ValueBlindBench clears the aggregate agreement gate at $\barκ_w = 0.7168$ but prevents several overclaims. Lower-rank systems collapse into a tie-class, one rubric dimension fails the per-dimension gate (\texttt{constraint_awareness}, $\barκ_w = 0.2022$), single-judge rankings are family-dependent, and terse-correct rationales receive a $Δ= -2.81$ rubric-point penalty relative to honest rationales. A targeted anchor-specificity probe further shows that financial constructs such as constraint awareness are operationally load-bearing. The scientific object is therefore not a leaderboard and not a claim to measure true investment skill. ValueBlindBench is a pre-calibration metrology layer for AI-finance evaluation: it governs whether a proposed LLM-judge-based investment-rationale claim is stable enough, agreed enough, and uncontaminated enough to be reported at all.

The development of practical (multimodal) large language model assistants for Korean weather forecasters is hindered by the absence of a multidimensional, expert-level evaluation framework grounded in authoritative sources. To address this, we introduce K-MetBench, a diagnostic benchmark grounded in national qualification exams. It exposes critical gaps across four dimensions: expert visual reasoning of charts, logical validity via expert-verified rationales, Korean-specific geo-cultural comprehension, and fine-grained domain analysis. Our evaluation of 55 models reveals a profound modality gap in interpreting specialized diagrams and a reasoning gap where models hallucinate logic despite correct predictions. Crucially, Korean models outperform significantly larger global models in local contexts, demonstrating that parameter scaling alone cannot resolve cultural dependencies. K-MetBench serves as a roadmap for developing reliable, culturally aware expert AI agents. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/soyeonbot/K-MetBench .

We reformulate explanation quality assessment as a ranking problem rather than a generation problem. Instead of optimizing models to produce a single "best" explanation token-by-token, we train reward models to discriminate among multiple candidate explanations and learn their relative quality. Concretely, we construct per-instance candidate sets with graded quality levels and train listwise and pairwise ranking models (ListNet, LambdaRank, RankNet) to preserve ordinal structure and avoid score compression typical of pointwise regression or binary preference objectives. We observe three findings: First, ranking losses consistently outperform regression on score separation across all domains tested. Second, the optimal ranking loss depends on data characteristics: listwise objectives excel with well-separated quality tiers, while pairwise methods are more robust to noisy natural annotations. Third, when trained on carefully curated and well-structured data, small encoder models can match models that are orders of magnitude larger, suggesting that data quality matters more than model scale. Finally, when used as rewards in policy optimization, ranking-based scores enable stable convergence in settings where regression-based rewards fail entirely. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/Tankiit/PPO_Learning_to_rank

Unlike traditional fact-based retrieval, rationale-based retrieval typically necessitates cross-encoding of query-document pairs using large language models, incurring substantial computational costs. To address this limitation, we propose Rabtriever, which independently encodes queries and documents, while providing comparable cross query-document comprehension capabilities to rerankers. We start from training a LLM-based generative reranker, which puts the document prior to the query and prompts the LLM to generate the relevance score by log probabilities. We then employ it as the teacher of an on-policy distillation framework, with Rabtriever as the student to reconstruct the teacher's contextual-aware query embedding. To achieve this effect, Rabtriever is first initialized from the teacher, with parameters frozen. The Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture (JEPA) paradigm is then adopted, which integrates a lightweight, trainable predictor between LLM layers and heads, projecting the query embedding into a new hidden space, with the document embedding as the latent vector. JEPA then minimizes the distribution difference between this projected embedding and the teacher embedding. To strengthen the sampling efficiency of on-policy distillation, we also add an auxiliary loss on the reverse KL of LLM logits, to reshape the student's logit distribution. Rabtriever optimizes the teacher's quadratic complexity on the document length to linear, verified both theoretically and empirically. Experiments show that Rabtriever outperforms different retriever baselines across diverse rationale-based tasks, including empathetic conversations and robotic manipulations, with minor accuracy degradation from the reranker. Rabtriever also generalizes well on traditional retrieval benchmarks such as MS MARCO and BEIR, with comparable performance to the best retriever baseline.

Subtle visual anomalies such as hairline cracks, sub-millimeter voids, and low-contrast inclusions are structurally atypical yet visually ambiguous, making them both difficult to annotate and easy to overlook during active learning. Standard acquisition heuristics based on discriminative uncertainty or feature diversity often overselect dominant patterns while underexploring sparse yet important regions of the data space. This failure mode is especially severe in industrial defect inspection, where anomalies may be both low-prevalence and difficult to distinguish from surrounding structure. To resolve this, we propose GSAL, an active learning framework for object detection that combines a diffusion-based difficulty signal with a hierarchical semantic coverage prior. The diffusion component scores images and proposals using reconstruction discrepancy and denoising variability, prioritizing visually atypical or ambiguous examples. However, diffusion alone does not prevent acquisition from repeatedly favoring hard samples within dominant semantic modes. The semantic component therefore organizes candidate samples in a three-level concept graph and promotes coverage of underrepresented semantic regions while providing interpretable acquisition rationales. By balancing visual difficulty with semantic coverage, GSAL improves retrieval of subtle and rare targets that are often missed by uncertainty-only selection. Experiments on a proprietary thin-film defect, Pascal VOC and MS COCO dataset show consistent gains in label efficiency and rare-class retrieval over uncertainty-, diversity-, and hybrid-based baselines

Beyond exploring disaggregated labels for modeling perspectives, annotator rationales provide fine-grained signals of individual perspectives. In this work, we propose a framework for jointly modeling annotator-specific label prediction and corresponding explanations, fine-tuned on the annotators' provided rationales. Using a dataset with disaggregated natural language inference (NLI) annotations and annotator-provided explanations, we condition predictions on both annotator identity and demographic metadata through a representation-level User Passport mechanism. We further introduce two explainer architectures: a post-hoc prompt-based explainer and a prefixed bridge explainer that transfers annotator-conditioned classifier representations directly into a generative model. This design enables explanation generation aligned with individual annotator perspectives. Our results show that incorporating explanation modeling substantially improves predictive performance over a baseline annotator-aware classifier, with the prefixed bridge approach achieving more stable label alignment and higher semantic consistency, while the post-hoc approach yields stronger lexical similarity. These findings indicate that modeling explanations as expressions of fine-grained perspective provides a richer and more faithful representation of disagreement. The proposed approaches advance perspectivist modeling by integrating annotator-specific rationales into both predictive and generative components.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification--its arguments, questions, and critique--rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.

Explainable AI (XAI) aims to make the behaviour of machine learning models interpretable, yet many explanation methods remain difficult to understand. The integration of Natural Language Generation into XAI aims to deliver explanations in textual form, making them more accessible to practitioners. Current approaches, however, largely yield static lists of feature importances. Although such explanations indicate what influences the prediction, they do not explain why the prediction occurs. In this study, we draw on insights from social sciences and linguistics, and argue that XAI explanations should be presented in the form of narratives. Narrative explanations support human understanding through four defining properties: continuous structure, cause-effect mechanisms, linguistic fluency, and lexical diversity. We show that standard Natural Language Processing (NLP) metrics based solely on token probability or word frequency fail to capture these properties and can be matched or exceeded by tautological text that conveys no explanatory content. To address this issue, we propose seven automatic metrics that quantify the narrative quality of explanations along the four identified dimensions. We benchmark current state-of-the-art explanation generation methods on six datasets and show that the proposed metrics separate descriptive from narrative explanations more reliably than standard NLP metrics. Finally, to further advance the field, we propose a set of problem-agnostic XAI Narrative generation rules for producing natural language XAI explanations, so that the resulting XAI Narratives exhibit stronger narrative properties and align with the findings from the linguistic and social science literature.

Automated scoring models are increasingly used to assign rubric-based quality ratings to complex language performances, including classroom transcripts, yet they typically provide little insight into why a particular score is produced. We propose a general framework for sentence-level interpretability of rubric-based scoring that combines model-agnostic Shapley-value attributions with rationales generated by large language models (LLMs). Instantiated on the Quality of Feedback dimension of the CLASS framework using the NCTE corpus, the framework enables systematic comparison of fine-tuned pretrained language models (PLMs) and prompted LLMs on both scoring performance and explanation faithfulness. Across 6k annotated transcript segments, fine-tuned PLMs outperform LLMs in prediction accuracy but exhibit label compression toward mid-scale scores. Deletion-based tests show that SHAP identifies sentences that reliably drive model predictions, producing typically larger and more coherent prediction shifts than LLM-generated rationales. Cross-model analyses further reveal that SHAP attributions transfer robustly across architectures, whereas LLM rationales exert limited and inconsistent influence. Overall, the findings demonstrate that SHAP provides more faithful and transferable explanations for rubric-based scoring, and that the proposed framework offers a principled basis for evaluating both scoring models and their explanations in high-stakes educational settings and other rubric-based language assessment tasks.

The significant computational demands of large language models have increased interest in distilling reasoning abilities into smaller models via Chain-of-Thought (CoT) distillation. Current CoT distillation methods mainly focus on transferring teacher-generated rationales for complex reasoning to student models. However, they do not adequately explore teachers' dynamic attention toward critical information during reasoning. We find that language models exhibit progressive attention shifts towards key information during reasoning, which implies essential clues for drawing conclusions. Building on this observation and analysis, we introduce a novel CoT distillation framework that transfers the teacher's stepwise attention on key information to the student model. This establishes structured guidance for the student's progressive concentration on key information during reasoning. More importantly, we develop a Mixture of Layers module enabling dynamic alignment that adapts to different layers between the teacher and student. Our method achieves consistent performance improvements across multiple mathematical and commonsense reasoning datasets. To our knowledge, it is the first method to leverage stepwise attention within CoT distillation to improve small model reasoning.

Binary decompilation is a critical reverse engineering task aimed at reconstructing high-level source code from stripped executables. Although Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently shown promise, they often suffer from "logical hallucinations" and "semantic misalignment" due to the irreversible semantic loss during compilation, resulting in generated code that fails to re-execute. In this study, we propose Cognitive Decompiler Refinement with Robustness (CoDe-R), a lightweight two-stage code refinement framework. The first stage introduces Semantic Cognitive Enhancement (SCE), a Rationale-Guided Semantic Injection strategy that trains the model to recover high-level algorithmic intent alongside code. The second stage introduces a Dynamic Dual-Path Fallback (DDPF) mechanism during inference, which adaptively balances semantic recovery and syntactic stability via a hybrid verification strategy. Evaluation on the HumanEval-Decompile benchmark demonstrates that CoDe-R (using a 1.3B backbone) establishes a new State-of-the-Art (SOTA) in the lightweight regime. Notably, it is the first 1.3B model to exceed an Average Re-executability Rate of 50.00%, significantly outperforming the baseline and effectively bridging the gap between efficient models and expert-level performance. Our code is available at https://github.com/Theaoi/CoDe-R.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is widely used as a reasoning aid and is often treated as a transparency mechanism. Yet behavioral gains under CoT do not imply that the model's internal computation causally depends on the emitted reasoning text, i.e. models may produce fluent rationales while routing decision-critical computation through latent pathways. We introduce a causal, layerwise audit of CoT faithfulness based on activation patching. Our key metric, the CoT Mediation Index (CMI), isolates CoT-specific causal influence by comparing performance degradation from patching CoT-token hidden states against matched control patches. Across multiple model families (Phi, Qwen, DialoGPT) and scales, we find that CoT-specific influence is typically depth-localized into narrow ''reasoning windows,'' and we identify bypass regimes where CMI is near-zero despite plausible CoT text. We further observe that models tuned explicitly for reasoning tend to exhibit stronger and more structured mediation than larger untuned counterparts, while Mixture-of-Experts models show more distributed mediation consistent with routing-based computation. Overall, our results show that CoT faithfulness varies substantially across models and tasks and cannot be inferred from behavior alone, motivating causal, layerwise audits when using CoT as a transparency signal.