When Should LLMs Abstain? Chain-of-Self-Questioning for Selective Risk Control

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in question answering (QA) systems, yet they may generate hallucinated or misaligned responses without reliable confidence estimates. Uncertainty quantification (UQ) offers a natural basis for selective answering, where a system answers only when its prediction is deemed reliable and abstains otherwise. However, existing uncertainty scores for LLMs are often heuristic: a threshold chosen on such scores does not, by itself, provide statistical guarantees on the error rate among accepted answers. We propose CIC, a confidence-interval-based calibration framework that converts arbitrary uncertainty scores into risk-controlled selective answering rules. Given a held-out calibration set, CIC evaluates each generated response using an application-specific alignment criterion and associates it with an uncertainty score and a binary error label. For each candidate uncertainty threshold, CIC estimates the acceptance-conditioned error rate and constructs a high-probability upper confidence bound using either Hoeffding-style or Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals. It then selects the largest threshold whose upper bound is below a user-specified risk level $α$, thereby maximizing the answering rate subject to a finite-sample reliability constraint. Under exchangeability, CIC guarantees with probability at least $1-δ$ that the selected threshold, if non-null, controls the error rate among accepted answers at level $α$. We evaluate CIC on both closed-ended and open-ended QA benchmarks across seven LLMs and multiple uncertainty estimators. Experimental results show that CIC consistently achieves valid risk control while retaining strong answering efficiency, providing a practical and statistically grounded mechanism for deploying LLMs in reliability-sensitive QA workflows.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) deployed for logical reasoning in knowledge-intensive domains exhibit a subtle but critical failure: coherence can be vacuously achieved through systematic abstention. A model that withholds commitment to either entailment or refutation satisfies negation consistency while providing no utility. We introduce Coherence Under Commitment (CUC), a dual-query evaluation paradigm that jointly measures consistency and decisiveness. CUC contributes three innovations: (1) a commitment score $c(\varphi) = p(\varphi) + p(\lnot\varphi)$ quantifying probability mass allocated to decisive outcomes; (2) a \textbf{deterministic elicitation protocol} via normalized YES/NO log probabilities, eliminating sampling variance; and (3) a 3-way decision framework (True/False/Uncertain) operationalizing the coherence-commitment trade-off into metrics. Experiments on four open-weight LLMs (1B-3B) across 204 FOLIO examples expose a sharp frontier. Qwen2.5-3B achieves near-zero contradiction ($\mathbb{E}[v_{\mathrm{neg}}]{=}0.025$) but only $7.4\%$ coverage, while TinyLlama-1.1B reaches $79.4\%$ coverage with violations on every example. Coherence-only evaluation would rank the abstaining model first; CUC exposes this as vacuous, and the frontier generalizes to LogiQA~v2 ($ρ{=}0.97$). We argue that evaluation must report both coherence and non-vacuous commitment and release a toolkit for standardized assessment.