Selective QA

A useful language model should know when to answer and when to say "I don't know." Can we improve that decision by training the model itself or by training a separate component to check its answers? We study both approaches on Qwen3-14B for factual questions, using a score that rewards correct answers, penalizes mistakes, and allows abstention. Across three training seeds and two held-out confidence thresholds, a learned answer selector improves threshold-averaged utility over the original model's calibrated confidence filter. On TriviaQA, mean coverage increases from 20.2% to 30.9%, while the pooled error rate among scored answers decreases from 23.0% to 14.5% under exact-match grading. The tested reinforcement-learning changes do not establish consistent gains. On NQ-Open, the selector improves threshold-averaged utility over the filter but still performs worse than always abstaining. A partial human-reviewed audit preserves the TriviaQA finding. Our results support learning to select answers in this setting while showing that reliable abstention across datasets remains unresolved.

Agents that answer questions from compressed or retrieved memory must recognize when the evidence a query needs is no longer in memory. Benchmarks for this task usually create insufficient-evidence examples by deleting supporting passages. We show that this construction leaks the label through memory size: on MuSiQue, a classifier that only counts paragraphs reaches an area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of $0.979$ for detecting unsafe memory, higher than the lexical estimator we initially evaluated. We propose a size-matched construction that provably removes this shortcut, and use it to study MemSafe, an estimator that cross-encodes the query with each memory unit and aggregates the units with a set transformer. Across three multi-hop question answering datasets and five seeds, MemSafe reaches $0.968$ and $0.983$ AUROC on MuSiQue and HotpotQA, $0.26$ to $0.39$ above a lexical baseline, while the third dataset, 2WikiMultiHopQA, is saturated. A frozen pretrained cross-encoder with a logistic head already closes $41\%$ of the MuSiQue gap between the lexical baseline and MemSafe. At the same time, MemSafe degrades more than a weak baseline on the unanswerable questions released with MuSiQue, reaches only $0.639$ AUROC on SQuAD~2.0, and needs several thousand clinical training examples before it outperforms a feature-based estimator. Used as a gate for a 7B reader, it reduces the error rate on answered questions from $0.850$ to $0.631$ at $5\%$ coverage, outperforming both reader confidence and, on average, the ground-truth integrity label, although a 7B LLM judge is the better gate at $10\%$ coverage. These results indicate that the way insufficient evidence is constructed matters as much as the estimator that detects it.

Recorded lecture videos, often enhanced with search and summarization features, are a standard study resource. However, students cannot easily ask course specific questions or verify answers against an instructor's lecture. We report a semester-long deployment of VideoPoints platform with a retrieval-augmented chatbot that answers from course lecture materials and returns timestamped citations. The chatbot retrieves only from the active course, uses chapter summaries to guide transcript ranking, and returns clickable timestamped citations. Students used it for quick lookups and exam review. Across 833 messages, 70.5% included citations, none crossed a course boundary, and when no lecture evidence matched, the chatbot usually declined rather than answering. Among the users, citations were the most consistently useful feature, while practice-question generation was the strongest unmet request. We also evaluated the design on the real-world test split of EduVidQA, a public multimodal benchmark for lecture-video question answering. Our design improved correct-lecture retrieval by 6.3 percentage points over dense-only retrieval. Together, the results show that effective deployment depends on course isolation, supported citations, and alignment with students' study practices.

Grounded question answering systems should answer only when the supplied evidence supports the answer. In multi-hop QA, this requirement is difficult because partial evidence can make an unsupported answer appear plausible. We study selective answering through evidence sufficiency boundaries: for the same question, a model should abstain under unsupported or partially supported context, answer when the context first becomes sufficient, and keep the answer stable when redundant evidence is added. We introduce Evidence Sufficiency Boundary Training, a generation-native training framework that constructs ordered evidence chains and supervises the abstain-to-answer transition directly. The method combines level supervision, a boundary flip margin, post-boundary stability, and answer recall protection. We build evidence chains from HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA, and MuSiQue, then evaluate models with chain metrics, raw QA utility, and unsupported-answer rates on external non-answerable sets. With Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct and LoRA adaptation, Evidence Sufficiency Boundary Training gives the strongest boundary localization among the tested systems, with flip accuracy of 0.807 compared with 0.781 for a token-level abstention baseline. It also achieves the lowest overall unsupported-answer rate on external non-answerable evaluation, 0.095 compared with 0.101 for the same baseline, while retaining competitive raw QA F1. The results show that grounded selective answering improves when training marks the evidence level where refusal should give way to answering.

Large language models (LLMs) may generate fluent but incorrect answers, making uncertainty quantification important for reliable question answering. However, heuristic uncertainty scores cannot perfectly distinguish correct predictions from incorrect ones, and directly applying a fixed uncertainty threshold provides no statistical control over the error rate among accepted answers. To address this limitation, we propose A-CRC-QA, a post-hoc calibration framework for uncertainty-aware selective question answering. The proposed method reformulates selection-conditioned error control as a linear expectation constraint and applies a monotonized empirical-risk calibration procedure inspired by conformal risk control. Since the resulting instance-wise loss is generally non-monotone with respect to the acceptance threshold, our framework targets asymptotic rather than finite-sample risk control. A-CRC-QA is model-agnostic, requires no additional training, and can be combined with different uncertainty estimators. Experiments on CoQA and MedMCQA demonstrate its applicability to both open-ended and closed-ended question answering, achieving a favorable trade-off between accepted-answer reliability and answer retention compared with uncalibrated and confidence-bound-based baselines.

Recent advances in equipping Large Language Models (LLMs) with search tools and outcome-reward reinforcement learning (RL) have achieved new state-of-the-art results on open-domain QA tasks. However, we argue that current training paradigms harbor a critical vulnerability: they predominantly reward correct answers but fail to penalize fabricated ones when retrieval fails, thereby implicitly exacerbating hallucinations. To address this, we propose Abstention-Aware Reinforcement Learning (AWA-RL), which dynamically shapes the abstention reward utilizing the model's query-specific prior capabilities and continuous on-policy training observations. We also introduce a novel metric, RA-F1, to measure the capability-reliability trade-off. Compared to non-abstaining baselines, AWA-RL boosts absolute precision by up to 10.3% and overall RA-F1 by 2.9%, with only marginal sacrifice in raw accuracy. These results confirm that AWA-RL successfully yields highly capable and reliable search agents. The code, data, and model weights are publicly available at https://github.com/zfj1998/AWA-RL.

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.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds answers in retrieved passages, but retrieval is not verification: a passage can be topical and still fail to justify the answer. We frame this gap as evidence sufficiency verification for selective RAG answering: given a question, a candidate answer, and retrieved evidence, predict whether the evidence supports, refutes, or is insufficient, and abstain unless support is established. We present SURE-RAG, a transparent aggregation protocol built on the observation that evidence sufficiency is a set-level property: missing hops and unresolved conflicts cannot be detected by independent passage scoring. A shared pair-level claim-evidence verifier produces local relation distributions, which SURE-RAG aggregates into interpretable answer-level signals -- coverage, relation strength, disagreement, conflict, and retrieval uncertainty -- yielding a three-way decision and an auditable selective score. We evaluate on HotpotQA-RAG v3, a controlled multi-hop benchmark, under an artifact-aware protocol (shortcut baselines, counterfactual swaps, no-oracle checks, GPT-4o audits). Calibrated SURE-RAG reaches 0.9075 Macro-F1 (0.8951 +/- 0.0069), substantially above DeBERTa mean-pooling (0.6516) and a GPT-4o judge (0.7284), while matching a strong but opaque concat cross-encoder (0.8888 +/- 0.0109) with full auditability. Risk at 30% coverage drops from 0.2588 to 0.1642, a 37% reduction in unsafe answers. To deliberately probe the task boundary, we further contrast SURE-RAG with GPT-4o on HaluBench unsafe detection: the ranking reverses (0.3343 vs 0.7389 unsafe-F1), establishing that controlled sufficiency verification and natural hallucination detection are distinct problems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance in question answering and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), yet they implicitly assume that user queries are fully specified and answerable. In real-world settings, queries are often incomplete, ambiguous, or missing critical variables, leading models to produce overconfident or hallucinated responses. In this work, we study decision-aware query resolution under incomplete information, where a model must determine whether to Answer, Ask for clarification, or Abstain. We show that standard and enhanced RAG systems do not reliably exhibit such epistemic awareness, defaulting to answer generation even when information is insufficient. To address this, we propose PassiveQA, a three-action framework that aligns model behaviour with information sufficiency through supervised finetuning. Our approach integrates structured information-state representations, knowledge graph-grounded context, and a finetuned planner that explicitly models missing variables and decision reasoning. Experiments across multiple QA datasets show that the finetuned planner achieves significant improvements in macro F1 and abstention recall while reducing hallucination rates, under a compute-constrained training regime. These results provide strong empirical evidence that epistemic decision-making must be learned during training rather than imposed at inference time.