[Submitted on 24 Mar 2026 (v1), last revised 15 Oct 2026 (this version, v3)]
Abstract:Existing NLP work commonly treats contradictions as errors to be resolved by choosing which statements to accept or discard. Yet a key aspect of human reasoning in social and professional settings is the ability to hypothesize explanations that reconcile contradictions. For example, “Cassie hates coffee” and “She buys coffee everyday” appear contradictory, but are in fact compatible if Cassie was assigned the daily chore of buying coffee for all her coworkers. Despite advances in the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), their ability to hypothesize such explanations remains largely unexplored. To address this gap, we introduce the task of reconciliatory explanation generation, where models must generate explanations that effectively render contradictory statements compatible. We propose a novel method of reusing natural language inference (NLI) datasets, and introduce quality metrics that enable scalable automatic evaluation. Experiments with 13 LLMs in thinking and non-thinking modes reveal models’ limited success in this task, with longer reasoning chains negatively associated with explanation success. As a proof of concept, we further adapt our introduced task and metrics for reinforcement-learning training, finding that trained models exhibit improved accuracy in non-thinking mode on two narrative reasoning benchmarks (True Detective and MuSR). Our findings highlight reconciliatory explanation generation as a challenge in LLM reasoning and motivate further work to investigate its potential for improving model capabilities.
Submission history
From: Jason Chan [view email]
[v1] Tue, 24 Mar 2026 03:00:17 UTC (471 KB)
[v2] Wed, 27 May 2026 16:28:11 UTC (478 KB)
[v3] Thu, 15 Oct 2026 15:55:04 UTC (458 KB)
