Natural language explanations (NLEs) are commonly used to provide plausible free-text explanations of a model’s reasoning about its predictions. However, recent work has questioned their faithfulness, as they may not accurately reflect the model’s internal reasoning process regarding its predicted answer. In contrast, highlight explanations–input fragments critical for the model’s predicted answers–exhibit measurable faithfulness. Building on this foundation, we propose G-TEx, a Graph-Guided Textual Explanation Generation framework designed to enhance the faithfulness of NLEs. Specifically, highlight explanations are first extracted as faithful cues reflecting the model’s reasoning logic toward answer prediction. They are subsequently encoded through a graph neural network layer to guide the NLE generation, which aligns the generated explanations with the model’s underlying reasoning toward the predicted answer. Experiments on both encoder-decoder and decoder-only models across three reasoning datasets demonstrate that G-TEx improves NLE faithfulness by up to 12.18% compared to baseline methods. Additionally, G-TEx generates NLEs with greater semantic and lexical similarity to human-written ones. Human evaluations show that G-TEx can decrease redundant content and enhance the overall quality of NLEs. Our work presents a novel method for explicitly guiding NLE generation to enhance faithfulness, serving as a foundation for addressing broader criteria in NLE and generated text.

Explaining the decision-making process of machine learning models is crucial for ensuring their reliability and transparency for end users. One popular explanation form highlights key input features, such as i) tokens (e.g., Shapley Values and Integrated Gradients), ii) interactions between tokens (e.g., Bivariate Shapley and Attention-based methods), or iii) interactions between spans of the input (e.g., Louvain Span Interactions). However, these explanation types have only been studied in isolation, making it difficult to judge their respective applicability. To bridge this gap, we develop a unified framework that facilitates an automated and direct comparison between highlight and interactive explanations comprised of four diagnostic properties. We conduct an extensive analysis across these three types of input feature explanations – each utilizing three different explanation techniques–across two datasets and two models, and reveal that each explanation has distinct strengths across the different diagnostic properties. Nevertheless, interactive span explanations outperform other types of input feature explanations across most diagnostic properties. Despite being relatively understudied, our analysis underscores the need for further research to improve methods generating these explanation types. Additionally, integrating them with other explanation types that perform better in certain characteristics could further enhance their overall effectiveness.