Dr. No: Feature Steering for Abstention in Vision-Language Models

The ability of vision-language models (VLMs) to abstain from unanswerable questions is as important as their ability to answer answerable ones accurately. Recently, several benchmarks have emerged to evaluate and improve VLM abstention, but they have substantial limitations. First, samples often contain shortcut cues in images or questions that reveal answerability, while an explicit "unanswerable" option further prevents accurate assessment of spontaneous abstention. Second, as training data, they generally provide only binary labels without fine-grained explanations for deeper supervision. To address these limitations, we introduce Visual Answerability Diagnosis with Rationales (VAD-R), a benchmark constructed through a two-stage pipeline of shortcut filtering and quality verification to prevent answerability leakage. Each example is annotated with step-by-step rationales and causal evidence-gap labels. Evaluation of state-of-the-art open- and closed-source VLMs on VAD-R reveals limited spontaneous abstention, with average recall rates of only 11.4% and 16.3%, respectively. Probing analyses show that hidden-state representations in certain layers can effectively distinguish answerability, yet this distinction fails to manifest in final responses. Motivated by this observation, we introduce Rep2Act, a representation-to-action alignment method that translates latent answerability awareness into explicit abstention decisions. Rep2Act improves action accuracy on VAD-R from 56.67% to 86.33% for Qwen2.5-VL-3B and from 59.33% to 88.67% for Qwen2.5-VL-7B. On the out-of-distribution TUBench, Rep2Act achieves an average F1 score of 53.3% with only a 3B model, surpassing the closed-source GPT-4 Turbo and GPT-4o by 16.2% and 1.1%, respectively.

Reinforcement fine-tuning improves the reasoning ability of large language models, but it can also encourage them to answer unanswerable queries by guessing or hallucinating missing information. Existing abstention methods either train models to produce generic refusals or encourage follow-up clarifications without verifying whether those clarifications identify the key missing information. We study queries that are clear in meaning but cannot be reliably resolved from the given information, and argue that a reliable model should not only abstain, but also explain what is missing. We propose a clarification-aware RLVR reward that, while rewarding correct answers on answerable queries, jointly optimizes explicit abstention and semantically aligned post-refusal clarification on unanswerable queries. Using this reward, we train Abstain-R1, a 3B model that improves abstention and clarification on unanswerable queries while preserving strong performance on answerable ones. Experiments on Abstain-Test, Abstain-QA, and SelfAware show that Abstain-R1 substantially improves over its base model and achieves unanswerable-query behavior competitive with larger systems including DeepSeek-R1, suggesting that calibrated abstention and clarification can be learned through verifiable rewards rather than emerging from scale alone.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly trained to abstain from answering questions they are unsure about. However, this ability is often misapplied: in real-world applications, user prompts sometimes contain elements of uncertainty, which lead LLMs to abstain even on problems they are capable of solving. We argue that LLM abstention is not only an expression of genuine uncertainty; it can also be an artifact largely shaped by prompts. We name this phenomenon Abstention Inflation. We add "Unknown" as an extra option for LLMs to choose from; experiments show serious accuracy drops on True/False Questions (TFQs). Replacing "Unknown" with an unrelated random word produces a similar effect. We argue that LLMs are trained to imitate the surface pattern of abstention, rather than to express genuine uncertainty. Based on ten experimental settings, we support four claims that form a progressive argument: (C1) Abstention Inflation can be triggered by the presence of an extra option, not by genuine uncertainty; (C2) it makes the models deny they can answer, even when they can; (C3) it is a later-layer output override, as the reasoning traces and mid-layer representations preserve correct answers; (C4) it is not stochastic noise: it results from various factors, emerges through instruction tuning, is boosted by problems' higher difficulty, and can be mitigated at larger model sizes.