Can Linguistic Structure Enrichment Improve Text Coherence Evaluation? Experiments Show It Actually Hurts Accuracy

Injecting linguistic structure into LLMs hurts coherence evaluation accuracy, but coherence itself is a useful proxy for detecting disinformation.
This arXiv paper systematically tests whether explicitly injecting syntactic dependency trees and rhetorical structure (RST) into language models improves their ability to evaluate text coherence. The counterintuitive finding: plain text input outperforms structure-enriched input, because structured annotations are fundamentally incompatible with the input distributions formed during Transformer pre-training — introducing noise rather than signal. The study also warns against explicit knowledge injection as pre-trained models scale up. On the positive side, zero-shot experiments on a Brazilian disinformation dataset show that text coherence is an effective proxy for detecting misleading content, offering a lightweight screening approach for content governance.
Introduction: Fluency ≠ Coherence — The Hidden Flaw in LLM-Generated Text
The rise of large language models (LLMs) has fundamentally transformed human-computer interaction. Yet despite their ability to produce grammatically correct and stylistically fluent text, these models frequently stumble at the semantic level — generating content that is self-contradictory, logically fragmented, or internally inconsistent. Such text may appear flawless on the surface, but closer reading reveals the logical gaps beneath.
A recent paper published on arXiv (arXiv:2609.10893v1) tackles this problem with an intuitive hypothesis: if we explicitly inject syntactic and rhetorical structure information into text, could this help models better detect incoherence? The answer is surprising — under current model architectures, this approach simply doesn't work.

Why Text Coherence Evaluation Is So Challenging
Grammatical Correctness ≠ Logical Consistency
Textual coherence refers to the semantic and logical continuity between sentences and paragraphs. A piece of writing may be grammatically perfect sentence by sentence, yet leave readers with a nagging sense that something is off — that is the hallmark of incoherence. This problem is especially pronounced in LLM-generated content: models excel at mimicking the surface form of language but struggle to guarantee deep logical consistency.
Linguistic Structure Enrichment: A Seemingly Sound Approach
The researchers' starting point was natural: since coherence involves syntactic structure and discourse-level rhetorical relationships, explicitly feeding this structured information to a model should theoretically improve its ability to judge whether text is coherent. This idea of "Linguistic Structure Enrichment" was widely used in the traditional NLP era — leveraging dependency parse trees, Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST), and other external knowledge to support downstream tasks.
Experimental Findings: Linguistic Structure Enrichment Actually Reduces Coherence Evaluation Accuracy
Structural Information Is Incompatible With Transformer Architectures
Through a series of experiments, the research team arrived at a counterintuitive conclusion: plain text input actually achieved higher accuracy. The additional syntactic and rhetorical information turned out to be fundamentally incompatible with the architecture of language models.
Modern Transformer-based language models are pre-trained on large-scale natural text and have a powerful capacity to model "normal" text sequences. When researchers forcibly injected structured annotations, those annotations disrupted the input format the model was accustomed to, introduced noise, and interfered with the model's original comprehension abilities. This finding carries significant methodological implications for the broader NLP field.
A Deeper Rethinking of the "Knowledge Injection" Paradigm
This result echoes an important trend in NLP in recent years: as pre-trained models grow in scale, many once-effective "explicit knowledge injection" techniques have gradually become ineffective or even counterproductive. Models have already implicitly learned a vast amount of syntactic and semantic regularities from massive data — manually added structural information often amounts to gilding the lily. This serves as a reminder that when designing model enhancement strategies, researchers must carefully consider compatibility with the underlying architecture.
Practical Value: Coherence Evaluation as a Proxy Signal for Disinformation Detection
Zero-Shot Experiments Validate Detection Potential
To demonstrate the real-world utility of coherence evaluation, the research team conducted zero-shot experiments on a Brazilian disinformation dataset. The results were revealing: text coherence can serve as an effective proxy indicator for detecting misleading content.
The reasoning is straightforward: disinformation, rumors, and misleading content often suffer from flawed logical construction — in order to serve a particular narrative, such texts frequently exhibit logical leaps, causal misalignments, or internal contradictions. A model that can effectively evaluate coherence therefore naturally possesses the potential to identify suspicious content.
A Lightweight Screening Approach for Content Governance
In an era of information overload and proliferating AI-generated content, automatically identifying low-quality, misleading, or fabricated material has become a major challenge. Using coherence evaluation as a detection mechanism offers a lightweight screening approach that does not rely on fact-checking databases. While it cannot replace rigorous fact verification, it can serve as a first-pass filter for large-scale content screening, helping to prioritize the flagging of high-risk content.
Research Significance and Future Outlook
The Methodological Value of Using Experiments to Disprove Intuitive Assumptions
One of the most valuable contributions of this research is its rigorous experimental refutation of a seemingly reasonable hypothesis. It reminds us that in the deep learning era, intuitive "enhancements" do not necessarily lead to performance gains — everything must be validated with data and experiments. The research team has also open-sourced their code and models (GitHub: ittozzamV/cohereclassifier) to facilitate reproduction and extension by future researchers.
Future Architectural Advances May Change the Conclusion
The phrasing "Not With Current Architectures" in the paper's title leaves room for imagination. It suggests that as model architectures evolve — for example, if future architectures natively support structured inputs — linguistic structure enrichment may yet find its place. Additionally, how to design more "friendly" ways of injecting structural information that coexist harmoniously with Transformer architectures remains a worthwhile avenue for deeper exploration.
For the fields of content safety and AI governance, using coherence as an interpretable detection signal is undoubtedly a research direction with both theoretical depth and practical value.
Related articles

AI Comic Drama with WorkBuddy from Scratch: A Step-by-Step Skill Pack Installation Guide
Learn how to create AI comic dramas with WorkBuddy from scratch. This guide covers installation, Skill pack import and invocation, plus a script generation demo with manual revision tips to get you through the first step from script to storyboard.

WorkBuddy Agent Runs the Entire GEO Database Mining Pipeline with a Single Prompt
WorkBuddy agent automates GEO database mining: from data search and curation to batch correction, differential analysis, co-expression networks, feature gene screening, and immune infiltration—a single prompt generates a complete bioinformatics report, greatly lowering the barrier to bioinformatics analysis.

PC Memory Wasted? Hacker News Debates Centralized Data Centers
Hacker News users argue that personal computer memory is wasted and should be centralized in data centers, sparking debate on centralized vs. distributed computing resource allocation. This article analyzes the logic behind the claim, the costs of centralization, and new tensions in memory resource allocation in the AI era.