Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

PINTO: Faithful Language Reasoning Using Prompt-Generated Rationales

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2211.01562 v3 pith:5GGNHFYC submitted 2022-11-03 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords reasoningpintorationalestaskrationalegeneratedpredictionsrationalizing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Neural language models (LMs) have achieved impressive results on various language-based reasoning tasks by utilizing latent knowledge encoded in their own pretrained parameters. To make this reasoning process more explicit, recent works retrieve a rationalizing LM's internal knowledge by training or prompting it to generate free-text rationales, which can be used to guide task predictions made by either the same LM or a separate reasoning LM. However, rationalizing LMs require expensive rationale annotation and/or computation, without any assurance that their generated rationales improve LM task performance or faithfully reflect LM decision-making. In this paper, we propose PINTO, an LM pipeline that rationalizes via prompt-based learning, and learns to faithfully reason over rationales via counterfactual regularization. First, PINTO maps out a suitable reasoning process for the task input by prompting a frozen rationalizing LM to generate a free-text rationale. Second, PINTO's reasoning LM is fine-tuned to solve the task using the generated rationale as context, while regularized to output less confident predictions when the rationale is perturbed. Across four datasets, we show that PINTO significantly improves the generalization ability of the reasoning LM, yielding higher performance on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution test sets. Also, we find that PINTO's rationales are more faithful to its task predictions than those generated by competitive baselines.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Rationales Are Not Silver Bullets: Measuring the Impact of Rationales on Model Performance and Reliability

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Rationale-augmented finetuning can hurt accuracy while improving calibration, with the sizes of both effects tied linearly to task difficulty.

  2. Rethinking Human Preference Evaluation of LLM Rationales

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A fine-grained attribute-based evaluation of LLM rationales can explain human preferences and reveal model trade-offs that binary comparisons obscure.

  3. ECCoT: A Framework for Enhancing Effective Cognition via Chain of Thought in Large Language Model

    cs.CL 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A framework that prunes 'ineffective' chain-of-thought steps using topic models and causal embeddings reports accuracy gains on three reasoning benchmarks, but lacks reproducibility details.

Pith tools