Recent advances in large language models have transformed human-computer interaction. Despite their fluency, these models often produce texts that are grammatically correct but semantically incoherent, containing contradictions or disruptions in logical flow. This work investigates whether enriching text with syntactic and rhetorical information can improve incoherence prediction. Our experiments and analysis show that plain texts achieved higher accuracy because the added information was structurally and syntactically incompatible with the language model's architecture. Additionally, to demonstrate the practical importance of coherence assessment, we performed zero-shot experiments on a Brazilian disinformation dataset, suggesting that textual coherence can serve as a proxy for detecting misleading content. Code and models are available at https://github.com/ittozzamV/cohereclassifier.
Psycholinguistics studies show that human readers fall for coherence illusions: an incoherent discourse can seem coherent simply because a distractor matches what comes next. We investigate whether Dutch language models (6 monolingual and 4 multilingual) show the same behavior on texts that link back to earlier context with words such as 'again' and 'too'. First, we find that surprisal at the critical word tracks human acceptability judgments and eye-tracking data. Models are more surprised by incoherent continuations, but a matching distractor in the prior context reduces this surprisal. Second, attention entropy identifies heads that behave differently under coherence vs. incoherence. We find that ablating these heads shows transfer effects across experiments, suggesting a shared mechanism. Third, we introduce energy from the associative-memory literature as a metric to quantify discourse coherence. Taken together, our results show that coherence illusions arise in Dutch LLMs, with entropy and energy exposing mechanisms that operate across settings.
Large language models (LLMs) deployed for logical reasoning in knowledge-intensive domains exhibit a subtle but critical failure: coherence can be vacuously achieved through systematic abstention. A model that withholds commitment to either entailment or refutation satisfies negation consistency while providing no utility. We introduce Coherence Under Commitment (CUC), a dual-query evaluation paradigm that jointly measures consistency and decisiveness. CUC contributes three innovations: (1) a commitment score c(φ)=p(φ)+p(¬φ) quantifying probability mass allocated to decisive outcomes; (2) a \textbf{deterministic elicitation protocol} via normalized YES/NO log probabilities, eliminating sampling variance; and (3) a 3-way decision framework (True/False/Uncertain) operationalizing the coherence-commitment trade-off into metrics. Experiments on four open-weight LLMs (1B-3B) across 204 FOLIO examples expose a sharp frontier. Qwen2.5-3B achieves near-zero contradiction (E[vneg]=0.025) but only 7.4% coverage, while TinyLlama-1.1B reaches 79.4% coverage with violations on every example. Coherence-only evaluation would rank the abstaining model first; CUC exposes this as vacuous, and the frontier generalizes to LogiQA~v2 (ρ=0.97). We argue that evaluation must report both coherence and non-vacuous commitment and release a toolkit for standardized assessment.
Can language models improve their accuracy without external supervision? Methods such as debate, bootstrap, and internal coherence maximization achieve this surprising feat, even matching golden finetuning performance. Yet why they work remains theoretically unclear. We show that they can all be understood as coherence optimization, the search for a context-to-behavior mapping that is most compressible and jointly predictable, with debate an exact instance and bootstrap and internal coherence maximization closely related to it. We prove that coherence optimization is equivalent to description-length regularization, and that among all such regularization schemes, coherence regularization with a prior derived from a pretrained model optimizes a lower bound of worst-case accuracy for semi-supervised learning. Our theory, supported by preliminary experiments, explains why feedback-free self-improvement works and predicts when it should succeed or fail.