Controlled Acquisition and Abstention in Three-Channel Score Conflicts

Standard selective prediction methods typically estimate uncertainty from the output of a single predictive branch. While effective for general uncertainty estimation, these approaches often struggle under partial observability, where local temporal evidence can be contradictory and standard confidence scores become misleading. We introduce CHASE (Competing Hypotheses for Ambiguity-Aware Selective Prediction), a selective prediction framework that explicitly compares structured temporal explanations to determine whether to commit to a decision or abstain. Because genuine ambiguity causes the score gap between competing hypotheses to collapse, CHASE optimizes a ranking-aware selector over these hypothesis margins to globally separate safe commitments from fundamentally uncertain ones. We evaluate this framework on the problem of hidden connectivity inference, utilizing a controlled, physically grounded simulator inspired by the dynamics of giant unilamellar vesicles (GUVs), alongside zero-shot qualitative transfer (without retraining or fine tuning) to representative real GUV videos. Our experiments demonstrate that explicitly reasoning over competing hypotheses provides a superior balance of metrics. Compared to canonical uncertainty baselines, CHASE achieves statistically significant gains in overall no-abstain accuracy, three-way accuracy, and overall ambiguity-aligned abstention (at 80% coverage). Specifically, it yields up to an 11.0% relative mean improvement in overall alignment, alongside up to an 8.8% relative boost in three-way accuracy in the very-high ambiguity regime. By maintaining a selective risk boundary strictly at par with the best baselines at 80% coverage, and reducing overall risk by 9.9% at 90% coverage, this framework offers a more reliable approach to decision-making under structured ambiguity.

Rejection policies must remain useful as candidate sets and tasks change. We compare Laya, Jev and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct using public reference labels, testing Laya/Jev policy transfer at equal calibration budgets and all three models on artificial omission, natural retrieval misses and public out-of-scope queries. Source calibration often fails to preserve the target operating point. A Jev policy calibrated on DBpedia rejects 69.3% of covered Emotion test inputs, while an Emotion policy loses detection entirely. Retrieval exposes a different tradeoff: with ten intent candidates, Laya detects 99.0% of out-of-scope queries but rejects 48.8% of covered queries. Separating missing-answer sources reveals these costs alongside retrieval coverage. The benchmark provides shared inputs, explicit decision and failure categories, and reproducible scoring to assess rejection policies under the conditions in which they are reused. Code and benchmark artifacts are available at https://github.com/luckykevvv/Decision_Model_Benchmark.

Emerging personal AI agents are moving toward persistent, multi-source memory. This creates an evaluation problem: systems must decide how to use conflicting or incomplete evidence; they cannot just retrieve facts from one clean history. Existing benchmarks rarely show whether an error came from the evidence given to a method or from the method's conflict-resolution step. We study this as selective QA over conflicting multi-source personal memory: systems answer based on conflicting, sometimes incomplete sources, or abstain when evidence is insufficient. We develop a benchmark containing 18 question templates across 8 reasoning types, 480 personas, 4 random seeds, and 34,560 instances, with controlled source distortions and deterministic ground truth. We evaluate the performance of baselines without access to any source, access to a single source, structured fusion methods, and frontier LLMs. The best trained fusion resolver reaches 80.3% accuracy, while the strongest prompt-only LLM baseline reaches 70.0%. With abstention, the same resolver reaches 85.3% selective accuracy at 78.3% coverage and the best LLM reaches 71.0% selective accuracy at 95.4% coverage. Different models have different strengths across reasoning types. We release the data, code, cached model outputs, and data-generating process for reuse.