Strong yet Controllable LLM Abstention without Learning to Abstain

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) often produce confident but incorrect answers, in part because standard evaluation incentives reward guessing over expressing uncertainty. We study epistemic abstention for factual questions with verifiable answers, where the goal is to improve selective answering, making LLMs abstain when they are likely to be wrong while preserving correct answers. Inspired by human behavioral decisions in question answering, we introduce I-CALM, a prompt-level framework for black-box LLMs. I-CALM combines elicited verbal confidence, announced answer/abstain payoffs, and normative guidance emphasizing truthfulness, humility, evidential support, and responsibility. To distinguish targeted abstention from indiscriminate refusal, we use a two-stage evaluation protocol, in which LLMs first choose whether to answer or abstain, and are then forced to provide a best guess for the abstained ones. Across models and factual QA datasets, I-CALM improves selective answering by reducing false-answer rate among surfaced responses and improving abstention quality, shifting error-prone cases into abstention while retaining answers the model would have answered correctly. Overall, I-CALM offers a lightweight way to improve inference-time selective answering without retraining or access to model's internal states. Code is available at https://github.com/FayLONG03/hallucinationControl.

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.