Large language models (LLMs) are proficient at generating fluent text with minimal task-specific supervision. However, their ability to generate rationales for knowledge-intensive tasks (KITs) remains under-explored. Generating rationales for KIT solutions, such as commonsense multiple-choice QA, requires external knowledge to support predictions and refute alternate options. In this work, we consider the task of generating retrieval-augmented rationalization of KIT model predictions via external knowledge guidance within a few-shot setting. Surprisingly, crowd-workers preferred LLM-generated rationales over existing crowd-sourced rationales, generated in a similar knowledge-guided setting, on aspects such as factuality, sufficiency, and convincingness. However, fine-grained evaluation of such rationales highlights the need for further improvements in conciseness, novelty, and domain invariance. Additionally, through an expert-sourced study evaluating the reliability of the rationales, we demonstrate that humans’ trust in LLM-generated rationales erodes when communicated faithfully, i.e., without taking model prediction accuracy into account. We find that even instrumenting simple guardrails can be effective for reliable rationalization.

Large language models (LLMs) can label data faster and cheaper than humans for various NLP tasks. Despite their prowess, LLMs may fall short in understanding of complex, sociocultural, or domain-specific context, potentially leading to incorrect annotations. Therefore, we advocate a collaborative approach where humans and LLMs work together to produce reliable and high-quality labels. We present MEGAnno+, a human-LLM collaborative annotation system that offers effective LLM agent and annotation management, convenient and robust LLM annotation, and exploratory verification of LLM labels by humans.