arXiv preprint ·
Strong yet Controllable LLM Abstention without Learning to Abstain
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) can reduce hallucination by abstaining from questions they would likely get wrong. Abstention can be implemented outside the model (selective answering) using a confidence threshold that controls the answer rate (coverage), or learned inside it (abstention training), which can perform better but fixes coverage once trained. To compare the two, we match their coverage and decompose risk (error rate) into answering ability and distinguishing ability, i.e., how well the model answers and how accurately it abstains, respectively. The decomposition shows that abstention training performs better mainly by answering better: with strong confidence estimators, the two have nearly equal distinguishing ability. This motivates Train for Accuracy, then Post-hoc Select (TAPS), a modular approach that keeps coverage controllable, needs only standard post-training and an off-the-shelf confidence estimator, and benefits from advances in either component. Across three LLMs and three factual QA benchmarks, TAPS with a probing-based confidence estimator attains 1.5--9.4 percentage points lower mean risk than three representative abstention training methods at matched coverage. Within TAPS, accuracy training often weakens the model's own confidence signals, yet refitting the estimator largely preserves distinguishing ability. Together, these results establish TAPS as a strong yet controllable baseline and raise the bar for future abstention training: sacrificing control over coverage should yield gains beyond what can be achieved by optimizing answering and abstaining separately.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
PAIR: Memory-Efficient and Fast Inference with Reading--Reasoning Fusion
Everyone Was Right: Lexical Representations in Language Models Are Both Abstract and Holistic
Improving the Evaluation of Biomedical Question Answering with Few Human Preference Signals
Many Steps into One: Reasoning Contraction and the Limits of Safe Memory Reuse for LLM Agents
Of Errors and Echoes: Responsibility-Aware Credit Assignment for Tool-Use Agents
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.