Improving Implicit Discourse Relation Recognition with Natural Language Explanations from LLMs

Heng Wang, Changxing Wu · Feb 25, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this paper page

Coverage: Stale

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Best use

Background context only

Metadata: Stale

Trust level

Low

Signals: Stale

What still needs checking

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Signal confidence: 0.30

Abstract

Implicit Discourse Relation Recognition (IDRR) remains a challenging task due to the requirement for deep semantic understanding in the absence of explicit discourse markers. A further limitation is that existing methods only predict relations without providing any supporting explanations. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown strong reasoning capabilities in both deep language understanding and natural language explanation generation. In this work, we propose a simple yet effective approach to distill the reasoning capabilities of LLMs into lightweight IDRR models to improve both performance and interpretability. Specifically, we first prompt an LLM to generate explanations for each training instance conditioned on its gold label. Then, we introduce a novel classification-generation framework that jointly performs relation prediction and explanation generation, and train it with the additional supervision of LLM-generated explanations. Our framework is plug-and-play, enabling easy integration with most existing IDRR models. Experimental results on PDTB demonstrate that our approach significantly improves IDRR performance, while human evaluation further confirms that the generated explanations enhance model interpretability. Furthermore, we validate the generality of our approach on sentiment classification and natural language inference

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
Extraction confidence is 0.30 (below strong-reference threshold).
No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What This Page Found In The Paper

Each field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Not found

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.