Cited by 142Topic ModelingInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Compositional Questions Do Not Necessitate Multi-hop Reasoning

Open access
Min, Sewon, Wallace, Eric, Singh, Sameer, Gardner, Matt, Hajishirzi, Hannaneh, Zettlemoyer, Luke·2019·Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Abstract

Multi-hop reading comprehension (RC) questions are challenging because they require reading and reasoning over multiple paragraphs.We argue that it can be difficult to construct large multi-hop RC datasets.For example, even highly compositional questions can be answered with a single hop if they target specific entity types, or the facts needed to answer them are redundant.Our analysis is centered on HOTPOTQA, where we show that single-hop reasoning can solve much more of the dataset than previously thought.We introduce a single-hop BERT-based RC model that achieves 67 F1-comparable to state-of-theart multi-hop models.We also design an evaluation setting where humans are not shown all of the necessary paragraphs for the intended multi-hop reasoning but can still answer over 80% of questions.Together with detailed error analysis, these results suggest there should be an increasing focus on the role of evidence in multi-hop reasoning and possibly even a shift towards information retrieval style evaluations with large and diverse evidence collections.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/p19-1416

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Dense retrievers like DPR and late-interaction models like ColBERT improve recall on single-hop queries but often struggle with multi-hop reasoning.

    “While dense retrievers like Dense Passage Retrieval (DPR) [14] and late-interaction models like ColBERT [15] improve recall on single-hop queries, they often struggle with multi-hop reasoning, where the answer depends on composing information from multiple disjoint documents [20, 6].”

    From Replace, Don't Expand: Mitigating Context Dilution in Multi-Hop RAG via Fixed-Budget Evidence Assembly (2025) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Open-domain Questions section reports that TF-IDF retrieval often fails to find the paragraphs needed for multi-hop questions. The Related Work section describes multi-hop questions as involving reasoning across multiple pieces of text. The paper does not evaluate DPR or ColBERT, or establish that those models struggle with multi-hop reasoning. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Johannes Welbl, Pontus Stenetorp, and Sebastian Riedel. 2017. Constructing Datasets for Multi-hop Reading Comprehension Across Documents. In TACL.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Min, S., Wallace, E., Singh, S., Gardner, M., Hajishirzi, H., & Zettlemoyer, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
Wallace, Eric
Venue
Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Published
2019
Pages
4249-4257
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2953163841
Cited by
138
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 18
FWCI
10.14
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1616112, 1252835, 1562364)
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence
  • Samsung
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-17-S-B001, N00014-18, N00014-18-1-2826, N00014, N00014-17)
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-16-1-, W911NF)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
HotpotQA, dataset construction, information retrieval evaluation, error analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review