PreprintCited by 42Topic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsNatural Language Processing Techniques

Answering Questions by Meta-Reasoning over Multiple Chains of Thought

Open access
Yoran, Ori, Wolfson, Tomer, Bogin, Ben, Katz, Uri, Deutch, Daniel, Berant, Jonathan·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Modern systems for multi-hop question answering (QA) typically break questions into a sequence of reasoning steps, termed chain-of-thought (CoT), before arriving at a final answer. Often, multiple chains are sampled and aggregated through a voting mechanism over the final answers, but the intermediate steps themselves are discarded. While such approaches improve performance, they do not consider the relations between intermediate steps across chains and do not provide a unified explanation for the predicted answer. We introduce Multi-Chain Reasoning (MCR), an approach which prompts large language models to meta-reason over multiple chains of thought, rather than aggregating their answers. MCR examines different reasoning chains, mixes information between them and selects the most relevant facts in generating an explanation and predicting the answer. MCR outperforms strong baselines on 7 multi-hop QA datasets. Moreover, our analysis reveals that MCR explanations exhibit high quality, enabling humans to verify its answers.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2304.13007

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • 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 [92]

    The Method and Analysis sections describe multiple retrieval-and-generation steps and show that MCR can combine facts from different reasoning chains. Appendix B.3 says the system retrieves from an updated Wikipedia source, but it does not establish that MCR integrates information specifically across new or updated knowledge elements. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yoran, O., Wolfson, T., Bogin, B., Katz, U., Deutch, D., & Berant, J.
Affiliations
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
  • Bar-Ilan University (IL)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Pages
5942-5966
OpenAlex
W4389523807
Cited by
38
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10
FWCI
6.73
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • H2020 European Research Council (802800)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
multi-hop question answering, chain-of-thought, meta-reasoning, explanation generation, large language models

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