CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 323Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Models

Open access
Press, Ofir, Zhang, Muru, Min, Sewon, Schmidt, Ludwig, Smith, Noah A., Lewis, Mike·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2210.03350arXiv 2210.03350
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We investigate the ability of language models to perform compositional reasoning tasks where the overall solution depends on correctly composing the answers to sub-problems. We measure how often models can correctly answer all sub-problems but not generate the overall solution, a ratio we call the compositionality gap. We evaluate this ratio by asking multi-hop questions with answers that require composing multiple facts unlikely to have been observed together during pretraining. In the GPT-3 family of models, as model size increases we show that the single-hop question answering performance improves faster than the multi-hop performance does, therefore the compositionality gap does not decrease. This surprising result suggests that while more powerful models memorize and recall more factual knowledge, they show no corresponding improvement in their ability to perform this kind of compositional reasoning. We then demonstrate how elicitive prompting (such as chain of thought) narrows the compositionality gap by reasoning explicitly. We present a new method, self-ask, that further improves on chain of thought. In our method, the model explicitly asks itself (and answers) follow-up questions before answering the initial question. We finally show that self-ask's structured prompting lets us easily plug in a search engine to answer the follow-up questions, which additionally improves accuracy.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2210.03350

Cites

59 of 59 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?

  • Existing benchmarks such as HotpotQA, Bamboogle, and 2wiki typically involve only two information-seeking steps and are not explicitly structured to support long-horizon interactions that necessitate memory management.

    “Existing benchmarks, such as HotpotQA [59], Bamboogle [38], and 2wiki [21], are often cited as multi-hop benchmarks, yet they typically involve only two information-seeking steps. Moreover, these datasets are not explicitly structured to support long-horizon interactions that necessitate the agent to manage the memory state.”

    From MEM1: Learning to Synergize Memory and Reasoning for Efficient Long-Horizon Agents (2025) · cites this paper as [38]

    Section 3.2, “Bamboogle” (page unavailable), identifies Bamboogle as a dataset of two-hop questions, supporting the part of the claim for which this paper is cited. The paper does not assess whether Bamboogle supports long-horizon interactions or requires memory-state management; a search for those terms found no relevant passage. The citations to HotpotQA and 2WikiMultiHopQA are separate from this citation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Updating an initial response through self-critique can improve performance.

    “Improved performance in reasoning tasks can be gained by encouraging language models to first generate internal thoughts or reasoning chains before responding (Wei et al., 2022; Adolphs et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022; Lanchantin et al., 2023), as well as updating their initial response through self-critique (Press et al., 2022; Madaan et al., 2023).”

    From Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Press et al., 2022

    Section 3.6 reports that self-ask improves performance on question-answering tasks. But Section 3.1 describes asking and answering follow-up questions before giving a final answer, not updating an initial answer through self-critique. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Simpler decomposition methods like Self-Ask [21] often broaden context too aggressively, triggering the dilution trap.

    “Simpler decomposition methods like Self-Ask [21] often broaden context too aggressively, triggering the dilution trap.”

    From Replace, Don't Expand: Mitigating Context Dilution in Multi-Hop RAG via Fixed-Budget Evidence Assembly (2025) · cites this paper as [21]

    Section 3.1 describes Self-ask as a method that decomposes questions into follow-up questions, supporting its identification as a decomposition method. Neither that section nor the search-engine discussion in Section 3.3 says Self-ask broadens context too aggressively or triggers a “dilution trap.” Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Updating an initial response through self-critique improves performance.

    “as well as updating their initial response through self-critique (Press et al., 2022; Madaan et al., 2023)”

    From Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Press et al., 2022

    Section 3.6 (Results; page unavailable) reports that self-ask improves performance over chain-of-thought prompting. But Section 3.1 describes generating and answering follow-up questions before giving a final answer, not updating an initial answer through self-critique. The claimed mechanism is therefore unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • More sophisticated RAG methods are able to integrate information across new or updated knowledge elements.

    “More sophisticated RAG methods, which perform multiple steps of retrieval and generation from an LLM, are even able to integrate information across new or updated knowledge elements[38, 64, 72, 78, 88, 90, 92], another crucial aspect of long-term memory systems.”

    From HippoRAG: Neurobiologically Inspired Long-Term Memory for Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [64]

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 61 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Sewon Min, Victor Zhong, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Han- naneh Hajishirzi. 2019. Multi-hop reading compre- hension through question decomposition and rescor- ing. ArXiv, abs/1906.02916. · arXiv
  2. Xi Ye and Greg Durrett. 2022. The unreliability of explanations in few-shot in-context learning. ArXiv, abs/2205.03401. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Press, O., Zhang, M., Min, S., Schmidt, L., Smith, N. A., & Lewis, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
Corresponding author
Press, Ofir
ORCID
Smith, Noah A.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
Pages
5687-5711
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2210.03350
arXiv
2210.03350
OpenAlex
W4389520103
Cited by
294
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 90 · 2025: 90 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 1
FWCI
52.09
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Science Foundation (2113530)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
compositional reasoning, multi-hop question answering, chain-of-thought prompting, GPT-3, model size scaling, structured prompting, search engine integration

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