In the field of NLP, Large Language Models (LLMs) have markedly enhanced performance across a variety of tasks. However, the comprehensive evaluation of LLMs remains an inevitable challenge for the community. Recently, the adoption of Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) as a benchmark for assessing LLMs has gained considerable traction. However, concerns regarding the robustness of this evaluative method persist. Building upon previous discussions on the issue of variability, we reveal an additional dimension of concern: LLMs may perform MCQA by selecting the least incorrect option rather than distinctly correct. This observation suggests that LLMs might regard multiple options as correct, which could undermine the reliability of MCQA as a metric for evaluating LLMs. To address this challenge, we introduce an enhanced dataset augmentation method for MCQA, termed MCQA+, to provide a more accurate reflection of the performance, thereby highlighting the necessity for more sophisticated evaluation mechanisms in the assessment of LLM capabilities.

Explaining black-box model behavior with natural language has achieved impressive results in various NLP tasks. Recent research has explored the utilization of subsequences from the input text as a rationale, providing users with evidence to support the model decision. Although existing frameworks excel in generating high-quality rationales while achieving high task performance, they neglect to account for the unreliable link between the generated rationale and model decision. In simpler terms, a model may make correct decisions while attributing wrong rationales, or make poor decisions while attributing correct rationales. To mitigate this issue, we propose a unified two-stage framework known as Self-Attribution and Decision-Making (SADM). Through extensive experiments on five reasoning datasets from the ERASER benchmark, we demonstrate that our framework not only establishes a more reliable link between the generated rationale and model decision but also achieves competitive results in task performance and the quality of rationale. Furthermore, we explore the potential of our framework in semi-supervised scenarios.