Organizations: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · University of Alberta · Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute · Huazhong University of Science and Technology · The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · RLWRLD · Nanyang Technological University · University of Pennsylvania
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly trained to abstain from answering questions they are unsure about. However, this ability is often misapplied: in real-world applications, user prompts sometimes contain elements of uncertainty, which lead LLMs to abstain even on problems they are capable of solving. We argue that LLM abstention is not only an expression of genuine uncertainty; it can also be an artifact largely shaped by prompts. We name this phenomenon Abstention Inflation. We add "Unknown" as an extra option for LLMs to choose from; experiments show serious accuracy drops on True/False Questions (TFQs). Replacing "Unknown" with an unrelated random word produces a similar effect. We argue that LLMs are trained to imitate the surface pattern of abstention, rather than to express genuine uncertainty. Based on ten experimental settings, we support four claims that form a progressive argument: (C1)Abstention Inflation can be triggered by the presence of an extra option, not by genuine uncertainty; (C2) it makes the models deny they can answer, even when they can; (C3) it is a later-layer output override, as the reasoning traces and mid-layer representations preserve correct answers; (C4) it is not stochastic noise: it results from various factors, emerges through instruction tuning, is boosted by problems' higher difficulty, and can be mitigated at larger model sizes.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Problem background: adding an “Unknown” option makes LLMs abstain heavily, and replacing it with a random word makes LLMs treat the word as a placeholder for “Unknown” and choose it. A detailed explanation and examples are in Section 4.1.4 .
Figure 2: Representative experiments for the four claims about Abstention Inflation , traced from prompt to training: extra-option trigger (C1), introspective gap (C2), later-layer output override (C3), various factors: instruction tuning, difficulty and scale (C4).
Model
Metric
FLD
FLD MCQ
FOLIO
FOLIO MCQ
ARC
MedQA
MMLU
LogiQA
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
Acc (S1)
78.4
78.4
87.0
87.0
98.4
94.2
89.2
73.4
Acc (S2)
53.0 ▼ 25.4
51.8 ▼ 26.6
75.4 ▼ 11.6
76.2 ▼ 10.8
98.8 ▲ 0.4
92.6 ▼ 1.6
88.8 ▼ 0.4
69.2 ▼ 4.2
Abs Rate (S2)
42.4
43.2
19.4
18.2
0.2
0.6
1.4
3.6
GPT-5.4-nano
Acc (S1)
61.9
61.9
84.2
84.2
93.8
82.8
76.1
50.6
Acc (S2)
23.2 ▼ 38.7
27.4 ▼ 34.5
72.0 ▼ 12.2
71.6 ▼ 12.6
94.0 ▲ 0.2
79.9 ▼ 2.9
75.5 ▼ 0.6
50.2 ▼ 0.4
Abs Rate (S2)
69.4
63.1
22.2
21.8
1.0
2.5
2.4
5.6
Table 1: Main results. S1 Acc : baseline (no “Unknown” Option). S2 Acc : Accuracy with “Unknown” in prompts; subscript = Δ from S1 ( ▼ decline / ▲ gain, %).
Figure 3: S4 Word Content Ablation on both TFQ datasets (top: FLD, bottom: FOLIO). Left: Replacement with synonyms of “Unknown” yields a similar effect. Right: Random unrelated words also yield a similar effect to “Unknown”.
Figure 4: Left: S5, w/o “Unknown” Option Rerun; all accuracies are above the 50% random baseline. Right: S6, Self-Diagnosis; models attribute 94.6–100% of their abstentions to the samples being objectively unanswerable, despite being able to answer correctly.
Figure 5: S7: Reasoning Traces Evaluation on traces generated with and without the “Unknown” option in the prompt. Left: the rate at which the NLI probe fails to recover the gold label from the trace. Right: adding the “Unknown” option causes a large accuracy drop.
Figure 6: S8: Logit-Lens Representation Probe. Left: the logit change ΔlogP(“Unknown”) across all 33 layers for prompts with and without the “Unknown” option. Right: Comparison of logP(“Unknown”) between Abstention Inflation and Wrong Prediction .
Figure 7: S9 Stability of Abstention Inflation . Left: Persistence Across Repeats. Right: Perception of Unknown-labeled Samples.
Figure 8: S10 Factor Analysis. Left: FLD samples with more steps lead to a higher Abs Rate . Right: higher temperature raises Abs Rate only slightly.
Figure 9: S10 Factor Analysis. (A) Abs Rate by Model Size & Alignment. (B) Abs Rate heatmap. (C) Accuracy and Abs Rate bar chart.
Figure 10: S10 Factor Analysis: Positional Biases. Error bars indicate 95% Wilson confidence intervals. Unknown (First), Unknown (Second), and Unknown (Third) place the “Unknown” option in the first, second, and third positions, respectively.
For Large Language Models (LLMs) to be reliably deployed, models must effectively know when not to answer: abstain. Reasoning models, in particular, have gained attention for impressive performance on complex tasks. However, reasoning models have been shown to have worse abstention abilities. Taking the vulnerabilities of reasoning models into account, we propose our Query Misalignment Framework. Hallucinations resulting in failed abstention can be reinterpreted as LLMs answering the wrong question (rather than answering a question incorrectly). Based on this framework, we develop a new class of state-of-the-art abstention methods called Trace Inversion. First, we generate the reasoning trace of a model. Based on only the trace, we then reconstruct the most likely query that the model responded to. Finally, we compare the initial query with the reconstructed query. Low similarity score between the initial query and reconstructed query suggests that the model likely answered the question incorrectly and is flagged to abstain. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Trace Inversion effectively boosts abstention performance in four frontier LLMs across nine abstention QA datasets, beating competitive baselines in 33 out of 36 settings.
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.
Junwei Zhang, Yifei Wang, Wanli Yang +6
State Key Laboratory of AI Safety, Institute of Computing Technology, CAS · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Beijing Institute of Technology
Reliable Large Language Models (LLMs) should abstain when confidence is insufficient. However, prior studies often treat refusal as a generic "I don't know'', failing to distinguish input-level ambiguity (data uncertainty) from capability limitations (model uncertainty). This lack of distinction limits downstream action decisions like requesting clarification or invoking external tools. In this work, we introduce UA-Bench, a benchmark of over 3,500 questions drawn from six datasets spanning knowledge-intensive and reasoning-intensive tasks, designed to evaluate explicit uncertainty attribution. An evaluation of 18 frontier LLMs shows that even state-of-the-art models struggle to reliably discriminate between data uncertainty and model uncertainty, and that high answer accuracy does not necessarily imply strong uncertainty attribution ability. To narrow this gap, we propose a lightweight data synthesis and reinforcement learning strategy. Experiments on both Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 and Qwen3-8B in thinking mode show that the proposed method improves uncertainty attribution while preserving answer accuracy. Our code and data are publicly available now.
Jingyi Ren, Ante Wang, Yunghwei Lai +5
Dept. of Comp. Sci. & Tech., Institute for AI, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · Institute for AI Industry Research (AIR), Tsinghua University, Beijing, China