Geometric Deviation as an Unsupervised Pre-Generation Reliability Signal: Probing LLM Representations for Answerability

When language models lack relevant knowledge for a given query, they frequently generate plausible responses that can be hallucinations, rather than admitting being agnostic about the answer. Retraining models to reward admitting ignorance can lead to overly conservative behaviors and poor generalization due to scarce evaluation benchmarks. We propose a post hoc framework, Conformal Abstention (CA), adapted from conformal prediction (CP) to determine whether to abstain from answering a query. CA provides finite-sample guarantees on both the probability of participation (i.e., not abstaining) and the probability that the generated response is correct. Importantly, the abstention decision relies on prediction confidence rather than the non-conformity scores used in CP, which are intractable for open-ended generation. To better align prediction confidence with the model's ignorance, we introduce a calibration strategy using representation geometry within the model to measure knowledge involvement in shaping the response. Experiments demonstrate that we improve selective answering significantly with 75 percent conditional correctness.

Large language models are known to hallucinate, generating linguistically plausible but incorrect answers to questions. Uncertainty quantification has been proposed as a strategy to detect such behaviour, but existing methods lack a unified framework to assess reliability at both the prompt and answer level. We introduce a geometric framework which quantifies language model uncertainty at both levels by explicitly modelling a prompt-conditioned semantic distribution in answer embedding space. Our approach is black-box and sampling-based; we generate multiple answers per prompt, and use archetypal analysis to estimate a geometric support for the answer distribution. At the prompt level, we approximate the distribution entropy to quantify uncertainty; for each individual answer, we then use notions of atypicality to assess its reliability relative to the batch. We employ our framework to not only detect hallucinations but correct them, by selecting the batch example deemed most reliable. Experiments show that our framework performs comparably to or better than prior methods on short form question-answering datasets, and achieves superior results on medical datasets where hallucinations carry particularly critical risks. Beyond pure performance, we suggest the theoretical grounding of our work provides support for semantic distributions as useful objects of study for language model uncertainty.

A model should refuse two different things: answers it would get wrong, and questions it should not answer at all, such as unanswerable ones or ones resting on a false premise. The usual recipe thresholds a single confidence score, which cannot tell these apart. Across five instruction-tuned models from three families (2B to 14B), we find they are separate axes. Ordinary answer-confidence tracks whether an answer is right but is nearly blind to whether the question is answerable; a linear probe on hidden states does the reverse. The blind spot does not shrink with scale. It is worst on naturally occurring false-premise questions (CREPE). There, answer-confidence, P(IK), P(True), and even asking the model outright whether a premise is false all stay near chance, while a hidden-state probe reaches 0.69 to 0.77 AUROC: the model represents a problem it will not report. This turns out to be fixable. Instructing a model to check premises backfires, because it then disputes sound and false premises alike (57% false challenges), unable to tell them apart; routing the same instruction with the probe roughly triples challenge precision. We turn the two axes into a calibrated policy that answers only when an answerability score and a correctness score each clear a separately certifies behave differently: the unanswerable-answer rate is controllable at every scale, while the wrong-answer rate is capped by model accuracy, so the guarantee tightens as threshold policy certifies both budgets at 0.75 coverage of correct answers, against 0.31 for a single threshold; at 14B it is the only policy that certifies at all.