Question Decomposition Improves the Faithfulness of Model-Generated Reasoning
Open accessAbstract
As large language models (LLMs) perform more difficult tasks, it becomes harder to verify the correctness and safety of their behavior. One approach to help with this issue is to prompt LLMs to externalize their reasoning, e.g., by having them generate step-by-step reasoning as they answer a question (Chain-of-Thought; CoT). The reasoning may enable us to check the process that models use to perform tasks. However, this approach relies on the stated reasoning faithfully reflecting the model's actual reasoning, which is not always the case. To improve over the faithfulness of CoT reasoning, we have models generate reasoning by decomposing questions into subquestions. Decomposition-based methods achieve strong performance on question-answering tasks, sometimes approaching that of CoT while improving the faithfulness of the model's stated reasoning on several recently-proposed metrics. By forcing the model to answer simpler subquestions in separate contexts, we greatly increase the faithfulness of model-generated reasoning over CoT, while still achieving some of the performance gains of CoT. Our results show it is possible to improve the faithfulness of model-generated reasoning; continued improvements may lead to reasoning that enables us to verify the correctness and safety of LLM behavior.
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
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?
Large language models and AI assistants tend to respond with a user's preferred answer even if it is not objectively correct, producing sycophancy.
“Large Language Models (LLMs) tend to prioritize adherence to user prompts over providing veracious responses, leading to the sycophancy issue.”
From From Yes-Men to Truth-Tellers: Addressing Sycophancy in Large Language Models with Pinpoint Tuning (2024) · cites this paper as Radhakrishnan et al., 2023
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
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 36
- AlKhamissi, B., Ladhak, F., Iyer, S., Stoyanov, V., Kozareva, Z., Li, X., Fung, P., Mathias, L., Celikyilmaz, A., and Diab, M. ToKen: Task decomposition and knowledge in- fusion for few-shot hate speech detection. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 2109-2120, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 2022. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology. org/2022.emnlp-main.136.
- Bai, Y., Jones, A., Ndousse, K., Askell, A., Chen, A., Das- Sarma, N., Drain, D., Fort, S., Ganguli, D., Henighan, T., Joseph, N., Kadavath, S., Kernion, J., Conerly, T., El-Showk, S., Elhage, N., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., Hernan- dez, D., Hume, T., Johnston, S., Kravec, S., Lovitt, L., Nanda, N., Olsson, C., Amodei, D., Brown, T., Clark, J., McCandlish, S., Olah, C., Mann, B., and Kaplan, J. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with rein- forcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862, 2022. · arXiv
- Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., de Oliveira Pinto, H. P., Kaplan, J., Edwards, H., Burda, Y., Joseph, N., Brockman, G., Ray, A., Puri, R., Krueger, G., Petrov, M., Khlaaf, H., Sastry, G., Mishkin, P., Chan, B., Gray, S., Ryder, N., Pavlov, M., Power, A., Kaiser, L., Bavar- ian, M., Winter, C., Tillet, P., Such, F. P., Cummings, D., Plappert, M., Chantzis, F., Barnes, E., Herbert-Voss, A., Guss, W. H., Nichol, A., Paino, A., Tezak, N., Tang, J., Babuschkin, I., Balaji, S., Jain, S., Saunders, W., Hesse, C., Carr, A. N., Leike, J., Achiam, J., Misra, V., Morikawa, E., Radford, A., Knight, M., Brundage, M., Murati, M., Mayer, K., Welinder, P., McGrew, B., Amodei, D., McCandlish, S., Sutskever, I., and Zaremba, W. Evaluating large language models trained on code, 2021.
- Christiano, P., Shlegeris, B., and Amodei, D. Supervis- ing strong learners by amplifying weak experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.08575, 2018. · arXiv
- Creswell, A., Shanahan, M., and Higgins, I. Selection- inference: Exploiting large language models for in- terpretable logical reasoning. In The Eleventh In- ternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=3Pf3Wg6o-A4.
- Doshi-Velez, F. and Kim, B. Towards a rigorous sci- ence of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608, 2017. · arXiv
- Dua, D., Gupta, S., Singh, S., and Gardner, M. Succes- sive prompting for decomposing complex questions. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1251-1265, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 2022. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. URL https: //aclanthology.org/2022.emnlp-main.81. Ferrucci, D. A., Brown, E. W., Chu-Carroll, J., Fan, J., Gondek, D., Kalyanpur, A., Lally, A., Murdock, J. W., Nyberg, E., Prager, J. M., Schlaefer, N., and Welty, C. Building watson: An overview of the deepqa project. AI Mag., 31:59-79, 2010.
- Geva, M., Khashabi, D., Segal, E., Khot, T., Roth, D., and Berant, J. Did Aristotle Use a Laptop? A Question An- swering Benchmark with Implicit Reasoning Strategies. Transactions of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics (TACL), 2021.
- Golovneva, O., Chen, M. P., Poff, S., Corredor, M., Zettlemoyer, L., Fazel-Zarandi, M., and Celikyilmaz, A. ROSCOE: A suite of metrics for scoring step-by- step reasoning. In The Eleventh International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, 2023. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=xYlJRpzZtsY.
- Guo, X.-Y., Li, Y.-F., and Haffari, G. Complex reading com- prehension through question decomposition. In Proceed- ings of the The 20th Annual Workshop of the Australasian Language Technology Association, pp. 31-40, Adelaide, Australia, December 2022. Australasian Language Tech- nology Association. URL https://aclanthology. org/2022.alta-1.
- Holtzman, A., Buys, J., Du, L., Forbes, M., and Choi, Y. The curious case of neural text degeneration. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=rygGQyrFvH.
- Jung, J., Qin, L., Welleck, S., Brahman, F., Bhagavatula, C., Le Bras, R., and Choi, Y. Maieutic prompting: Logi- cally consistent reasoning with recursive explanations. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1266-1279, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 2022. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. URL https: //aclanthology.org/2022.emnlp-main.82. Kojima, T., Gu, S. S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y., and Iwasawa, Y. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In Koyejo, S., Mohamed, S., Agarwal, A., Belgrave, D., Cho, K., and Oh, A. (eds.), Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pp. 22199-22213.
- Curran Associates, Inc., 2022. URL https://proceedings.neurips. cc/paper_files/paper/2022/file/ 8bb0d291acd4acf06ef112099c16f326-Paper-Conference. pdf.
- Lanham, T., Chen, A., Radhakrishnan, A., Steiner, B., Deni- son, C., Hernandez, D., Li, D., Durmus, E., Hubinger, E., Kernion, J., Lukosuite, K., Nguyen, K., Cheng, N., Joseph, N., Schiefer, N., Rausch, O., Larson, R., McCan- dlish, S., Kundu, S., Kadavath, S., Yang, S., Henighan, T., Maxwell, T., Telleen-Lawton, T., Hume, T., Hatfield- Dodds, Z., Kaplan, J., Brauner, J., Bowman, S. R., and Perez, E. Measuring faithfulness in chain-of-thought reasoning. arXiv preprint (released concurrently), 2023.
- Li, S., Chen, J., Shen, Y., Chen, Z., Zhang, X., Li, Z., Wang, H., Qian, J., Peng, B., Mao, Y., Chen, W., and Yan, X. Explanations from large language models make small reasoners better. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06726, 2022. · arXiv
- Lightman, H., Kosaraju, V., Burda, Y., Edwards, H., Baker, B., Lee, T., Leike, J., Schulman, J., Sutskever, I., and Cobbe, K. Let's verify step by step. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050, 2023. · arXiv
- Lyu, Q., Havaldar, S., Stein, A., Zhang, L., Rao, D., Wong, E., Apidianaki, M., and Callison-Burch, C. Faithful chain- of-thought reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv 2301.13379, 2023. · arXiv
- Madaan, A. and Yazdanbakhsh, A. Text and patterns: For effective chain of thought, it takes two to tango, 2022. arXiv prepring arXiv:2209.07686. · arXiv
- Mihaylov, T., Clark, P., Khot, T., and Sabharwal, A. Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering. In EMNLP, 2018.
- Min, S., Zhong, V., Zettlemoyer, L., and Hajishirzi, H. Multi-hop reading comprehension through ques- tion decomposition and rescoring. arXiv preprint arXiv 1906.02916, 2019. · arXiv
- Nakano, R., Hilton, J., Balaji, S., Wu, J., Ouyang, L., Kim, C., Hesse, C., Jain, S., Kosaraju, V., Saunders, W., Jiang, X., Cobbe, K., Eloundou, T., Krueger, G., Button, K., Knight, M., Chess, B., and Schulman, J. Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with hu- man feedback. CoRR, abs/2112.09332, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.09332. · arXiv
- Nye, M., Johan Andreassen, A., Gur-Ari, G., Michalewski, H., Austin, J., Bieber, D., Dohan, D., Lewkowycz, A., Bosma, M., Luan, D., Sutton, C., and Odena, A. Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.00114, 2021. · arXiv
- Patel, P., Mishra, S., Parmar, M., and Baral, C. Is a ques- tion decomposition unit all we need? arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12538, 2022. · arXiv
- Perez, E., Lewis, P., Yih, W.-t., Cho, K., and Kiela, D. Unsupervised question decomposition for question an- swering. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2020.
- Perez, E., Ringer, S., Lukošiūtė, K., Nguyen, K., Chen, E., Heiner, S., Pettit, C., Olsson, C., Kundu, S., Ka- davath, S., Jones, A., Chen, A., Mann, B., Israel, B., Seethor, B., McKinnon, C., Olah, C., Yan, D., Amodei, D., Amodei, D., Drain, D., Li, D., Tran-Johnson, E., Khundadze, G., Kernion, J., Landis, J., Kerr, J., Mueller, J., Hyun, J., Landau, J., Ndousse, K., Goldberg, L., Lovitt, L., Lucas, M., Sellitto, M., Zhang, M., Kingsland, N., Elhage, N., Joseph, N., Mercado, N., DasSarma, N., Rausch, O., Larson, R., McCandlish, S., Johnston, S., Kravec, S., Showk, S. E., Lanham, T., Telleen-Lawton, T., Brown, T., Henighan, T., Hume, T., Bai, Y., Hatfield- Dodds, Z., Clark, J., Bowman, S. R., Askell, A., Grosse, R., Hernandez, D., Ganguli, D., Hubinger, E., Schiefer, N., and Kaplan, J. Discovering language model be- haviors with model-written evaluations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09251, 2022. · arXiv
- Reppert, J., Rachbach, B., George, C., Stebbing, L., Byun, J., Appleton, M., and Stuhlmüeller, A. Iterated decompo- sition: Improving science Q&A by supervising reasoning processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.01751, 2023. · arXiv
- Reynolds, L. and McDonell, K. Prompt programming for large language models: Beyond the few-shot paradigm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.07350, 2021. · arXiv
- Snell, C., Klein, D., and Zhong, R. Learning by distilling context. arXic preprint arXiv 2209.15189, 2022. · arXiv
- Turpin, M., Michael, J., Perez, E., and Bowman, S. R. Lan- guage models don't always say what they think: Unfaith- ful explanations in chain-of-thought prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04388, 2023. · arXiv
- Uesato, J., Kushman, N., Kumar, R., Song, F., Siegel, N., Wang, L., Creswell, A., Irving, G., and Higgins, I. Solv- ing math word problems with process-and outcome- based feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14275, 2022. · arXiv
- Wang, L., Xu, W., Lan, Y., Hu, Z., Lan, Y., Lee, R. K.-W., and Lee, E.-P. Plan-and-solve prompting: Improving zero-shot chain-of-thought reasoning by large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04091, 2023. · arXiv
- Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., ichter, b., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., and Zhou, D. Chain-of- thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Koyejo, S., Mohamed, S., Agarwal, A., Belgrave, D., Cho, K., and Oh, A. (eds.), Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pp. 24824-24837.
- Curran Associates, Inc., 2022. URL https://proceedings.neurips. cc/paper_files/paper/2022/file/ 9d5609613524ecf4f15af0f7b31abca4-Paper-Conference. pdf.
- Yang, Z., Qi, P., Zhang, S., Bengio, Y., Cohen, W. W., Salakhutdinov, R., and Manning, C. D. HotpotQA: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question an- swering. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2018.
- Ye, X. and Durrett, G. The unreliability of explanations in few-shot prompting for textual reasoning. In Oh, A. H., Agarwal, A., Belgrave, D., and Cho, K. (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=Bct2f8fRd8S.
- Zhou, D., Schärli, N., Hou, L., Wei, J., Scales, N., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Cui, C., Bousquet, O., Le, Q., and Chi, E. Least-to-most prompting enables complex reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625, 2023. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models
Dhuliawala, S., Komeili, M., Xu, J., Raileanu, R., Li, X., Celikyilmaz, A., & Weston, J. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.212 · Cited by 282 · see citing works
Sharma, M., Tong, M., Korbak, T., Duperrouzel, D., Was, H., Korbak, J., Cheng, M., Askell, A., Bai, Y., Brain, C., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.13548 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
“For each prompt, we sample 32 responses from a helpful-only version of Claude 1.3 (the ‘helpful-only’ model) (Radhakrishnan et al., 2023; Anthropic, 2023).”
InfluentialSelf-citationTurpin, M., Michael, J., Perez, E., & Bowman, S. R. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.04388 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Self-citationChain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models
Dhuliawala, S., Komeili, M., Xu, J., Raileanu, R., Li, X., Celikyilmaz, A., & Weston, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.11495 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
“…further advantage of removing any potential interference not only from the baseline response, but also between answer contexts, and is somewhat related to the recent (concurrent) work of Radhakrishnan et al. (2023) for subquestion answering by factored decomposition, hence we adopt their naming.”
BackgroundSonkar, S., Liu, N., Mallick, D., & Baraniuk, R. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.130 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Future Shock: Generative AI and the International AI Policy and Governance Crisis
Leslie, D., & Perini, A. M. (2024) · Harvard Data Science Review · doi:10.1162/99608f92.88b4cc98 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Debating with More Persuasive LLMs Leads to More Truthful Answers
Khan, A., Hughes, J., Valentine, D., Ruis, L., Sachan, K., Radhakrishnan, A., Grefenstette, E., Bowman, S. R., Rocktäschel, T., & Perez, E. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.06782 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citationReasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think
Chen, Y., Benton, J., Radhakrishnan, A., Uesato, J., Denison, C., Schulman, J., Somani, A., Hase, P., Wagner, M., Roger, F., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.05410 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Self-citationArgumentative Stance Prediction: An Exploratory Study on Multimodality and Few-Shot Learning
Sharma, A., Gupta, A., & Bilalpur, M. (2023) · Workshop on Argument Mining (ArgMining) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.argmining-1.18 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
From Yes-Men to Truth-Tellers: Addressing Sycophancy in Large Language Models with Pinpoint Tuning
Chen, W., Huang, Z., Xie, L., Lin, B., Li, H., Lu, L., Tian, X., Cai, D., Zhang, Y., Wang, W., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.01658 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Agent-Driven Automatic Software Improvement
Ruiz, F. V. (2024) · International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE) · doi:10.1145/3661167.3661171 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Siegel, N. Y., Camburu, O.-M., Heess, N., & Perez-Ortiz, M. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.03189 · Cited by 5
Safe4U: Identifying Unsound Safe Encapsulations of Unsafe Calls in Rust using LLMs
Li, H., Wang, B., Hu, X., & Xia, X. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on software engineering. · doi:10.1145/3728890 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
On Measuring Faithfulness or Self-consistency of Natural Language Explanations
Parcalabescu, L., & Frank, A. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.07466 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
ToFC: Tree-of-Fact with Continued Best-First Search for Commonsense Reasoning
Dai, L., & Qin, K. (2024) · International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) · doi:10.1109/ijcnn60899.2024.10649921 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
DIEM: Decomposition-Integration Enhancing Multimodal Insights
Jiang, X., Wang, G., Guo, J., Li, J., Zhang, W., Lu, R., & Tang, S. (2024) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.02578 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
The meek shall inherit the Earth: personality, empathy, and the human shaping of LLMs
Mangalam, M. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01215-y
- Authors
- Radhakrishnan, A., Nguyen, K., Chen, A., Chen, C., Denison, C., Hernandez, D., Durmus, E., Hubinger, E., Kernion, J., Lukošiūtė, K., Cheng, N., Joseph, N., Schiefer, N., Rausch, O., McCandlish, S., Showk, S. E., Lanham, T., Maxwell, T., Chandrasekaran, V., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., Kaplan, J., Brauner, J., Bowman, S. R., & Perez, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2307.11768
- OpenAlex
- W4385291106
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Keywords
- question decomposition, chain-of-thought reasoning, reasoning faithfulness, large language models, question answering, LLM safety
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
