Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Reason2Decide: Rationale-Driven Multi-Task Learning

H M Quamran Hasan, Housam Khalifa Bashier, Jiayi Dai, Mi-Young Kim, Randy Goebel · Dec 23, 2025 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Despite the wide adoption of Large Language Models (LLM)s, clinical decision support systems face a critical challenge: achieving high predictive accuracy while generating explanations aligned with the predictions. Current approaches suffer from exposure bias leading to misaligned explanations. We propose Reason2Decide, a two-stage training framework that addresses key challenges in self-rationalization, including exposure bias and task separation. In Stage-1, our model is trained on rationale generation, while in Stage-2, we jointly train on label prediction and rationale generation, applying scheduled sampling to gradually transition from conditioning on gold labels to model predictions. We evaluate Reason2Decide on three medical datasets, including a proprietary triage dataset and public biomedical QA datasets. Across model sizes, Reason2Decide outperforms other fine-tuning baselines and some zero-shot LLMs in prediction (F1) and rationale fidelity (BERTScore, BLEU, LLM-as-a-Judge). In triage, Reason2Decide is rationale source-robust across LLM-generated, nurse-authored, and nurse-post-processed rationales. In our experiments, while using only LLM-generated rationales in Stage-1, Reason2Decide outperforms other fine-tuning variants. This indicates that LLM-generated rationales are suitable for pretraining models, reducing reliance on human annotations. Remarkably, Reason2Decide achieves these gains with models 40x smaller than contemporary foundation models, making clinical reasoning more accessible for resource-constrained deployments while still providing explainable decision support.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

37/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Despite the wide adoption of Large Language Models (LLM)s, clinical decision support systems face a critical challenge: achieving high predictive accuracy while generating explanations aligned with the predictions."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Despite the wide adoption of Large Language Models (LLM)s, clinical decision support systems face a critical challenge: achieving high predictive accuracy while generating explanations aligned with the predictions."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Despite the wide adoption of Large Language Models (LLM)s, clinical decision support systems face a critical challenge: achieving high predictive accuracy while generating explanations aligned with the predictions."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Despite the wide adoption of Large Language Models (LLM)s, clinical decision support systems face a critical challenge: achieving high predictive accuracy while generating explanations aligned with the predictions."

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy, F1, Bleu, Bertscore

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Despite the wide adoption of Large Language Models (LLM)s, clinical decision support systems face a critical challenge: achieving high predictive accuracy while generating explanations aligned with the predictions."

Rater Population

partial

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"Despite the wide adoption of Large Language Models (LLM)s, clinical decision support systems face a critical challenge: achieving high predictive accuracy while generating explanations aligned with the predictions."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Expertise required: Medicine

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracyf1bleubertscore

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Despite the wide adoption of Large Language Models (LLM)s, clinical decision support systems face a critical challenge: achieving high predictive accuracy while generating explanations aligned with the predictions.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Despite the wide adoption of Large Language Models (LLM)s, clinical decision support systems face a critical challenge: achieving high predictive accuracy while generating explanations aligned with the predictions.
  • Current approaches suffer from exposure bias leading to misaligned explanations.
  • We propose Reason2Decide, a two-stage training framework that addresses key challenges in self-rationalization, including exposure bias and task separation.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We propose Reason2Decide, a two-stage training framework that addresses key challenges in self-rationalization, including exposure bias and task separation.
  • We evaluate Reason2Decide on three medical datasets, including a proprietary triage dataset and public biomedical QA datasets.
  • Across model sizes, Reason2Decide outperforms other fine-tuning baselines and some zero-shot LLMs in prediction (F1) and rationale fidelity (BERTScore, BLEU, LLM-as-a-Judge).

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Across model sizes, Reason2Decide outperforms other fine-tuning baselines and some zero-shot LLMs in prediction (F1) and rationale fidelity (BERTScore, BLEU, LLM-as-a-Judge).
  • This indicates that LLM-generated rationales are suitable for pretraining models, reducing reliance on human annotations.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy, f1, bleu, bertscore

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.