The self-rationalising capabilities of LLMs are appealing because the generated explanations can give insights into the plausibility of the predictions. However, how faithful the explanations are to the predictions is questionable, raising the need to explore the patterns behind them further. To this end, we propose a hypothesis-driven statistical framework. We use a Bayesian network to implement a hypothesis about how a task (in our example, natural language inference) is solved, and its internal states are translated into natural language with templates. Those explanations are then compared to LLM-generated free-text explanations using automatic and human evaluations. This allows us to judge how similar the LLM's and the Bayesian network's decision processes are. We demonstrate the usage of our framework with an example hypothesis and two realisations in Bayesian networks. The resulting models do not exhibit a strong similarity to GPT-3.5. We discuss the implications of this as well as the framework's potential to approximate LLM decisions better in future work.

When natural language phrases are combined, their meaning is often more than the sum of their parts. In the context of NLP tasks such as sentiment analysis, where the meaning of a phrase is its sentiment, that still applies. Many NLP studies on sentiment analysis, however, focus on the fact that sentiment computations are largely compositional. We, instead, set out to obtain non-compositionality ratings for phrases with respect to their sentiment. Our contributions are as follows: a) a methodology for obtaining those non-compositionality ratings, b) a resource of ratings for 259 phrases -- NonCompSST -- along with an analysis of that resource, and c) an evaluation of computational models for sentiment analysis using this new resource.

Such features include spelling correction, processing of incomplete (ell ipt ic-I) input?, jntfrrog-t ior of th