Having a unified, coherent taxonomy is essential for effective knowledge representation in domain-specific applications as diverse terminologies need to be mapped to underlying concepts. Traditional manual approaches to taxonomy alignment rely on expert review of concept pairs, but this becomes prohibitively expensive and time-consuming at scale, while subjective interpretations often lead to expert disagreements. Existing automated methods for taxonomy alignment have shown promise but face limitations in handling nuanced semantic relationships and maintaining consistency across different domains. These approaches often struggle with context-dependent concept mappings and lack transparent reasoning processes. We propose a novel framework that combines large language models (LLMs) with expert calibration and iterative prompt optimization to automate taxonomy alignment. Our method integrates expert-labeled examples, multi-stage prompt engineering, and human validation to guide LLMs in generating both taxonomy linkages and supporting rationales. In evaluating our framework on a domain-specific mapping task of concept essentiality, we achieved an F1-score of 0.97, substantially exceeding the human benchmark of 0.68. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in scaling taxonomy alignment while maintaining high-quality mappings and preserving expert oversight for ambiguous cases.

Large language models (LLMs) are proficient at generating fluent text with minimal task-specific supervision. Yet, their ability to provide well-grounded rationalizations for knowledge-intensive tasks remains under-explored. Such tasks, like commonsense multiple-choice questions, require rationales based on world knowledge to support predictions and refute alternate options. We consider the task of generating knowledge-guided rationalization in natural language by using expert-written examples in a few-shot manner. Surprisingly, crowd-workers preferred knowledge-grounded rationales over crowdsourced rationalizations, citing their factuality, sufficiency, and comprehensive refutations. Although LLMs-generated rationales were preferable, further improvements in conciseness and novelty are required. In another study, we show how rationalization of incorrect model predictions erodes humans' trust in LLM-generated rationales. Motivated by these observations, we create a two-stage pipeline to review task predictions and eliminate potential incorrect decisions before rationalization, enabling trustworthy rationale generation.