aiqbench analysis
This research evaluates how different sources of natural language explanations—human, self-generated, or externally generated LLMs—affect model performance in few-shot prompting scenarios across classification and math reasoning tasks. The study finds that while external LLM rationales often match human quality on standard benchmarks, the utility of self-generated explanations is highly sensitive to selection strategies and can vary significantly depending on specific metrics and models used.
When Do Explanations Help In-Context Learning? A Comparative Study of Natural Language Explanation Types and Faithfulness
arXiv:2608.16627v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Natural language explanations (NLEs) are increasingly used as inputs, for example, as few-shot rationales that influence model behavior in in-context learning (ICL). However, it remains unclear how different types of NLEs compare in their effects on downstream model performance in explanation-augmented prompting. Therefore, we provide a comparative evaluation across six benchmarks and four instruction-tuned models, studying how NLE source (human-written when available, self-generated explanations, generated by an external LLM) and NLE selection (random vs faithfulness-based filtering) affect downstream utility of NLEs when used in ICL settings. Our extensive evaluation shows that, on classification-style benchmarks, adding NLEs to few-shot prompts often improves accuracy over few-shot prompting without explanations; among NLE sources, externally generated LLM-NLEs often provide strong downstream utility and remain competitive with human rationales where both are available, whereas self-NLEs are more sensitive to the selection strategy. On math reasoning, the effects are more model- and source-dependent. We further show that faithfulness-based selection of self-NLEs yields small average gains overall, but can improve or reduce performance depending on the metric, task, and model. Different faithfulness metrics can disagree substantially, affecting which self-NLE examples are selected and their downstream predictive utility. Robustness tests with randomly swapped and out-of-distribution rationales indicate partial robustness, suggesting that semantic alignment contributes to performance gains. Overall, our results provide insights for selecting and reporting explanations that influence model behavior in practical prompting pipelines.
Title:When Do Explanations Help In-Context Learning? A Comparative Study of Natural Language Explanation Types and Faithfulness
Abstract:Natural language explanations (NLEs) are increasingly used as inputs, for example, as few-shot rationales that influence model behavior in in-context learning (ICL). However, it remains unclear how different types of NLEs compare in their effects on downstream model performance in explanation-augmented prompting. Therefore, we provide a comparative evaluation across six benchmarks and four instruction-tuned models, studying how NLE source (human-written when available, self-generated explanations, generated by an external LLM) and NLE selection (random vs faithfulness-based filtering) affect downstream utility of NLEs when used in ICL settings. Our extensive evaluation shows that, on classification-style benchmarks, adding NLEs to few-shot prompts often improves accuracy over few-shot prompting without explanations; among NLE sources, externally generated LLM-NLEs often provide strong downstream utility and remain competitive with human rationales where both are available, whereas self-NLEs are more sensitive to the selection strategy. On math reasoning, the effects are more model- and source-dependent. We further show that faithfulness-based selection of self-NLEs yields small average gains overall, but can improve or reduce performance depending on the metric, task, and model. Different faithfulness metrics can disagree substantially, affecting which self-NLE examples are selected and their downstream predictive utility. Robustness tests with randomly swapped and out-of-distribution rationales indicate partial robustness, suggesting that semantic alignment contributes to performance gains. Overall, our results provide insights for selecting and reporting explanations that influence model behavior in practical prompting pipelines.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2608.16627 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2608.16627v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.16627 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 341 words
Related coverage
Latent reasoning architectures would likely undermine CoT, our strongest oversight tool
AI Alignment Forum · Sep 23, 2026
Untrusted advice for AI control: Short, strong advice significantly uplifts weak LLMs
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026
J++ Lens: Jacobian Filtering Enables More Faithful Workspace Lenses
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026
In open RLVR, “improvement” depends on the instrument — a small GRPO testbed separating what training optimizes, measures, and teaches
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026