Papers › Do Large Language Models Have Compositional Ability? An Investigation into Limitations...

Do Large Language Models Have Compositional Ability? An Investigation into Limitations and Scalability

22 Jul 2024arXiv:2407.15720archive 2025-07-28

Zhuoyan Xu, Zhenmei Shi, YIngyu Liang

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for many AI problems and exhibit remarkable in-context learning (ICL) capabilities. Compositional ability, solving unseen complex tasks that combine two or more simple tasks, is an essential reasoning ability for Artificial General Intelligence. Despite the tremendous success of LLMs, how they approach composite tasks, especially those not encountered during the pretraining phase, remains an open and largely underexplored question. In this study, we delve into the ICL capabilities of LLMs on composite tasks, with only simple tasks as in-context examples. We develop a test suite of composite tasks including linguistic and logical challenges and perform empirical studies across different LLM families. We observe that models exhibit divergent behaviors: (1) For simpler composite tasks that apply distinct mapping mechanisms to different input segments, the models demonstrate decent compositional ability, while scaling up the model enhances this ability; (2) for more complex composite tasks involving reasoning multiple steps, where each step represents one task, models typically underperform, and scaling up generally provides no improvements. We offer theoretical analysis in a simplified setting, explaining that models exhibit compositional capability when the task handles different input parts separately. We believe our work sheds new light on the capabilities of LLMs in solving composite tasks regarding the nature of the tasks and model scale. Our dataset and code are available at {\url{https://github.com/OliverXUZY/LLM_Compose}}.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

4 samples harvested; 4 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 4 of the 4 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from oliverxuzy/llm_compose. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections