ExperimentWe demonstrate that the proposed definition of \(\textsc{CnstScore}(\tau_{\text{2H}},\tau_{\text{1H}})\) is a reasonable proxy of the utilization of what the LLM knows about the bridge entity's attribute - the latent recall of its answer to \(\tau_{\text{1H}}\) - with indirect evidence. If the information to reason with is given as part of the input, e.g., if the given prompt is _"The singer of 'Supersition' is Stevie Wonder. The mother of Stevie Wonder is named Lula. The mother of the singer of 'Supersition' is"_, the LLM would not need to internally perform the multi-hop reasoning to refer to what its output to the one-hop prompt _"The mother of Stevie Wonder is"_ is, but just copy the answer from the input. Therefore, \(\textsc{CnstScore}\) of such a case will be lower than the case where the LLM needs to internally figure out what its answer to the one-hop prompt given the hint of who the descriptive mention refers to, e.g., _"The singer of 'Superstition' is Stevie Wonder. The mother of the singer of 'Superstition' is"_. Therefore, to check whether this is the case, we compare \(\textsc{CnstScore}\) computed with the several Chain-of-Thought (CoT) style prompts \(\tau^{\prime}\), i.e., \(\textsc{CnstScore}(\tau^{\prime},\tau_{\text{1H}})\).