  Many methods now exist for conditioning model outputs on task instructions,
retrieved documents, and user-provided explanations and feedback. Rather than
relying solely on examples of task inputs and outputs, these approaches use
valuable additional data for improving model correctness and aligning learned
models with human priors. Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence suggests that
some language models can (1) store a large amount of knowledge in their
parameters, and (2) perform inference over tasks in textual inputs at test
time. These results raise the possibility that, for some tasks, humans cannot
explain to a model any more about the task than it already knows or could infer
on its own. In this paper, we study the circumstances under which explanations
of individual data points can (or cannot) improve modeling performance. In
order to carefully control important properties of the data and explanations,
we introduce a synthetic dataset for experiments, and we also make use of three
existing datasets with explanations: e-SNLI, TACRED, and SemEval. We first give
a formal framework for the available modeling approaches, in which explanation
data can be used as model inputs, as targets, or as a prior. After arguing that
the most promising role for explanation data is as model inputs, we propose to
use a retrieval-based method and show that it solves our synthetic task with
accuracies upwards of 95%, while baselines without explanation data achieve
below 65% accuracy. We then identify properties of datasets for which
retrieval-based modeling fails. With the three existing datasets, we find no
improvements from explanation retrieval. Drawing on findings from our synthetic
task, we suggest that at least one of six preconditions for successful modeling
fails to hold with these datasets. Our code is publicly available at
https://github.com/peterbhase/ExplanationRoles
