Natural Language Inference datasets often exhibit human label variation. To better understand these variations, explanation-based approaches analyze the underlying reasoning behind annotators' decisions. One such approach is the LiTEx taxonomy, which categorizes free-text explanations in English into reasoning types. However, previous work applying such taxonomies has focused on within-label variation: cases where annotators agree on the final NLI label but provide different explanations. In contrast, this paper broadens the scope by examining how annotators may diverge not only in the reasoning type but also in the labeling step. We use explanations as a lens to decompose the reasoning process underlying NLI annotation and to analyze individual differences. We apply LiTEx to two NLI English datasets and align annotation variation from multiple aspects: NLI label agreement, explanation similarity, and taxonomy agreement, with an additional compounding factor of annotators' selection bias. We observe instances where annotators disagree on the label but provide highly similar explanations, suggesting that surface-level disagreement may mask underlying agreement in interpretation. Moreover, our analysis reveals individual preferences in explanation strategies and label choices. These findings highlight that agreement in reasoning types better reflects the semantic similarity of free-text explanations than label agreement alone. Our findings underscore the richness of reasoning-based explanations and the need for caution in treating labels as ground truth.

There is increasing evidence of Human Label Variation (HLV) in Natural Language Inference (NLI), where annotators assign different labels to the same premise-hypothesis pair. However, within-label variation--cases where annotators agree on the same label but provide divergent reasoning--poses an additional and mostly overlooked challenge. Several NLI datasets contain highlighted words in the NLI item as explanations, but the same spans on the NLI item can be highlighted for different reasons, as evidenced by free-text explanations, which offer a window into annotators' reasoning. To systematically understand this problem and gain insight into the rationales behind NLI labels, we introduce LITEX, a linguistically-informed taxonomy for categorizing free-text explanations in English. Using this taxonomy, we annotate a subset of the e-SNLI dataset, validate the taxonomy's reliability, and analyze how it aligns with NLI labels, highlights, and explanations. We further assess the taxonomy's usefulness in explanation generation, demonstrating that conditioning generation on LITEX yields explanations that are linguistically closer to human explanations than those generated using only labels or highlights. Our approach thus not only captures within-label variation but also shows how taxonomy-guided generation for reasoning can bridge the gap between human and model explanations more effectively than existing strategies.

Prediction over event sequences is critical for many real-world applications in Information Retrieval and Natural Language Processing. Future Event Generation (FEG) is a challenging task in event sequence prediction because it requires not only fluent text generation but also commonsense reasoning to maintain the logical coherence of the entire event story. In this paper, we propose a novel explainable FEG framework, Coep. It highlights and integrates two types of event knowledge, sequential knowledge of direct event-event relations and inferential knowledge that reflects the intermediate character psychology between events, such as intents, causes, reactions, which intrinsically pushes the story forward. To alleviate the knowledge forgetting issue, we design two modules, Im and Gm, for each type of knowledge, which are combined via prompt tuning. First, Im focuses on understanding inferential knowledge to generate commonsense explanations and provide a soft prompt vector for Gm. We also design a contrastive discriminator for better generalization ability. Second, Gm generates future events by modeling direct sequential knowledge with the guidance of Im. Automatic and human evaluation demonstrate that our approach can generate more coherent, specific, and logical future events.