ResultFigure 9 shows the distribution of \(\textsc{CnstScore}\) computed with different styles of prompts \(\tau^{\prime}\) as written in the y-axis. The red case is the consistency score of the two-hop prompt that we mainly study in our work, which requires full multi-hop reasoning. Because no information to reason from is given in the input, \(\textsc{CnstScore}\) is significantly lower than the cases of other CoT-style prompts. The blue case is where what the descriptive mention refers to is given as the input, but what the LLM knows about the bridge entity's attribute needs to be internally recalled and referred to. The green cases are where the bridge entity's attribute, i.e., the answer to the prompt, is explicitly given in the input, and thus, the LLM does not need to refer to its answer to the one-hop prompt. The result demonstrates that the mean of \(\textsc{CnstScore}\) is higher for the blue cases where the model is forced to refer to its answer to the one-hop prompt than in the green cases where the model does not need to refer to the answer. The difference between the red and the blue cases would have come from the existence of the information of the descriptive mention's identity in the input prompt, which would have helped the LLM to use the connection to refer to what it knows about the bridge entity.