The DOI matches its DataCite record; 59 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Measuring and Narrowing the Compositionality Gap in Language Models
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“SelfAsk (Press et al., 2022) prompts LLMs to decompose a question into subquestions and answers these subquestions by issuing separate calls to the Google Search API.”
From Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions (2023) · cites this paper as Press et al., 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Our experiments show that FRESH- PROMPT outperforms both competing search engine-augmented prompting methods such as SELF-ASK (Press et al., 2022) as well as commercial systems such as PERPLEXITY.AI.”
From FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation (2024) · cites this paper as Press et al., 2022
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Lastly, we note that our QA scores exceed those reported by recent works on few-shot prompting for open-domain QA (ODQA) (Khot et al., 2023;Press et al., 2022;Yao et al., 2022), although a fair apples-to-apples comparison with them isn't possible (cf.Appendix C).”
From Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions (2023) · cites this paper as Press et al., 2022
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“IRCoT is SOTA for few-shot multistep ODQA.14”
From Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions (2023) · cites this paper as Press et al., 2022
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.
Citations
Cites
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372
Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.11903 · Cited by 4,263
Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks
Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W.-T., Rocktäschel, T., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.11401 · Cited by 3,101
Self-citationA Diversity-Promoting Objective Function for Neural Conversation Models
Li, J., Galley, M., Brockett, C., Gao, J., & Dolan, B. (2016) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n16-1014 · Cited by 2,459
Large language models are zero-shot reasoners
Kojima, T., Gu, S. (., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y., & Iwasawa, Y. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1613 · Cited by 2,013
Vinyals, O., & Le, Q. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1506.05869 · Cited by 1,400
Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models
Wei, J., Tay, Y., Bommasani, R., Raffel, C., Zoph, B., Borgeaud, S., Yogatama, D., Bosma, M., Zhou, D., Metzler, D., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.07682 · Cited by 1,264
Personalizing Dialogue Agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too?
Zhang, S., Dinan, E., Urbanek, J., Szlam, A., Kiela, D., & Weston, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1205 · Cited by 1,177
Neural Responding Machine for Short-Text Conversation
Shang, L., Lu, Z., & Li, H. (2015) · doi:10.3115/v1/p15-1152 · Cited by 1,146
Leveraging Passage Retrieval with Generative Models for Open Domain Question Answering
Izacard, G., & Grave, E. (2021) · Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.74 · Cited by 1,109
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 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
- 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
Huang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., et al. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3703155 · Cited by 4,688
Augmenting large language models with chemistry tools
M. Bran, A., Cox, S., Schilter, O., Baldassari, C., White, A. D., & Schwaller, P. (2024) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-024-00832-8 · Cited by 794
Unleashing the potential of prompt engineering for large language models
CHEN, B. ‐., Zhang, Z., Langrené, N., & Zhu, S. (2025) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2025.101260 · Cited by 1,097
Active Retrieval Augmented Generation
Jiang, Z., Xu, F., Gao, L., Sun, Z., Liu, Q., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Yang, Y., Callan, J., & Neubig, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.495 · Cited by 497
Towards Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey
Huang, J., & Chang, K. C.-C. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.67 · Cited by 428
Metadata
- 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
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
