Prompt Engineering has garnered significant attention for enhancing the performance of large language models across a multitude of tasks. Techniques such as the Chain-of-Thought not only bolster task performance but also delineate a clear trajectory of reasoning steps, offering a tangible form of explanation for the audience. Prior works on interpretability assess the reasoning chains yielded by Chain-of-Thought solely along a singular axis, namely faithfulness. We present a comprehensive and multifaceted evaluation of interpretability, examining not only faithfulness but also robustness and utility across multiple commonsense reasoning benchmarks. Likewise, our investigation is not confined to a single prompting technique; it expansively covers a multitude of prevalent prompting techniques employed in large language models, thereby ensuring a wide-ranging and exhaustive evaluation. In addition, we introduce a simple interpretability alignment technique, termed Self-Entailment-Alignment Chain-of-thought, that yields more than 70% improvements across multiple dimensions of interpretability. Code is available at https://github.com/SenticNet/CoT_interpretability

The increasing use of complex and opaque black box models requires the adoption of interpretable measures, one such option is extractive rationalizing models, which serve as a more interpretable alternative. These models, also known as Explain-Then-Predict models, employ an explainer model to extract rationales and subsequently condition the predictor with the extracted information. Their primary objective is to provide precise and faithful explanations, represented by the extracted rationales. In this paper, we take a semi-supervised approach to optimize for the plausibility of extracted rationales. We adopt a pre-trained natural language inference (NLI) model and further fine-tune it on a small set of supervised rationales (10%). The NLI predictor is leveraged as a source of supervisory signals to the explainer via entailment alignment. We show that, by enforcing the alignment agreement between the explanation and answer in a question-answering task, the performance can be improved without access to ground truth labels. We evaluate our approach on the ERASER dataset and show that our approach achieves comparable results with supervised extractive models and outperforms unsupervised approaches by > 100%.