Training Negatives Still Matter After Calibrating Answerability Readouts

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.

Multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks have been a standard evaluation practice for measuring LLMs' ability to reason and answer knowledge-based questions. Through a synthetic NonsenseQA benchmark, we observe that different LLMs exhibit varying degrees of label-position-few-shot-prompt bias, where the model either uses the answer position, the label in front of the answer, the distributions of correct answers present in the few-shot prompt, or a combination of all to answer each MCQ question. We propose a simple bias-reduced evaluation protocol that replaces the labels of each question with uniform, unordered labels and prompts the LLM to use the whole answer presented. With a simple sentence similarity model, we demonstrate improved robustness and lower standard deviation between different permutations of answers with a minimal drop in LLM's performance, exposing the LLM's capabilities under reduced evaluation artifacts, without any help from the prompt examples or the option labels. Across multiple benchmarks and models, this protocol substantially improves the robustness to answer permutations, reducing mean accuracy variance $3\times$ with only a minimal decrease in the mean model's performance. Through ablation studies on various embedding models and similarity functions, we show that the method is more robust than the standard ones.

Constrained-option scoring reads a model's probabilities for a fixed set of permitted answers, so it returns a score even when the model is about to write something else. We study a prompt that quotes a multiple-choice item, ending in the item's own answer instruction, and asks for a forecast of whether a reader model given only a short note will answer it correctly. The model can begin answering the quoted item: on three Qwen3 checkpoints an answer letter is the most probable token on nearly every passage, and the forecast ranks the reader's correctness indistinguishably from chance. Beyond prior work's argmax check and prefill repair, we contribute a label-free diagnostic of the declared options' support, their first-token mass in context; a deletion test tracing the Qwen3 answer-letter start to the quoted instruction; and rendering and tokenisation checks for dropped separators and coinciding first tokens. Prefilling an answer stem lifts the median option mass from below to above one half on all nine checkpoints scored with this prompt and, with options and renormalisation unchanged, raises the Qwen3-averaged AUC from 0.4929 to 0.6152. lm-polygraph's default P(True) estimator shows a related failure: it reads True where Qwen3 without thinking favours an answer letter (MMLU) or the prompt's (A)/(B) label (TriviaQA), and its Qwen3-averaged AUROC is indistinguishable from chance on MMLU and below chance on TriviaQA. Scoring and renormalising the (A)/(B) labels after an answer stem raises it to 0.632 and 0.868, renormalising True against False in place reaches 0.660 and 0.860, and on TriviaQA both exceed all fourteen default single-answer library estimators. The original forecast is renormalised too, yet stays indistinguishable from chance: option mass flags low support in both settings without labels, and only checking the intended target shows which score still ranks.