Decomposed Prompting Does Not Fix Knowledge Gaps, But Helps Models Say "I Don't Know"
Fuente:
arXiv
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2026
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866912877815791616 |
|---|---|
| author | Madhwal, Dhruv Zhang, Lyuxin David Roth, Dan Wolfson, Tomer Gupta, Vivek |
| author_facet | Madhwal, Dhruv Zhang, Lyuxin David Roth, Dan Wolfson, Tomer Gupta, Vivek |
| contents | Large language models often struggle to recognize their knowledge limits in closed-book question answering, leading to confident hallucinations. While decomposed prompting is typically used to improve accuracy, we investigate its impact on reliability. We evaluate three task-equivalent prompting regimes: Direct, Assistive, and Incremental, across different model scales and multi-hop QA benchmarks. We find that although accuracy gains from decomposition diminish in frontier models, disagreements between prompting regimes remain highly indicative of potential errors. Because factual knowledge is stable while hallucinations are stochastic, cross-regime agreement provides a precise signal of internal uncertainty. We leverage this signal to implement a training-free abstention policy that requires no retrieval or fine-tuning. Our results show that disagreement-based abstention outperforms standard uncertainty baselines as an error detector, improving both F1 and AUROC across settings. This demonstrates that decomposition-based prompting can serve as a practical diagnostic probe for model reliability in closed-book QA. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2602_04853 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Decomposed Prompting Does Not Fix Knowledge Gaps, But Helps Models Say "I Don't Know" Madhwal, Dhruv Zhang, Lyuxin David Roth, Dan Wolfson, Tomer Gupta, Vivek Computation and Language Large language models often struggle to recognize their knowledge limits in closed-book question answering, leading to confident hallucinations. While decomposed prompting is typically used to improve accuracy, we investigate its impact on reliability. We evaluate three task-equivalent prompting regimes: Direct, Assistive, and Incremental, across different model scales and multi-hop QA benchmarks. We find that although accuracy gains from decomposition diminish in frontier models, disagreements between prompting regimes remain highly indicative of potential errors. Because factual knowledge is stable while hallucinations are stochastic, cross-regime agreement provides a precise signal of internal uncertainty. We leverage this signal to implement a training-free abstention policy that requires no retrieval or fine-tuning. Our results show that disagreement-based abstention outperforms standard uncertainty baselines as an error detector, improving both F1 and AUROC across settings. This demonstrates that decomposition-based prompting can serve as a practical diagnostic probe for model reliability in closed-book QA. |
| title | Decomposed Prompting Does Not Fix Knowledge Gaps, But Helps Models Say "I Don't Know" |
| topic | Computation and Language |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.04853 |