REVIEW 6 cited by
Do LLMs Know When to NOT Answer? Investigating Abstention Abilities of Large Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Do LLMs Know When to NOT Answer? Investigating Abstention Abilities of Large Language Models
read the original abstract
Abstention Ability (AA) is a critical aspect of Large Language Model (LLM) reliability, referring to an LLM's capability to withhold responses when uncertain or lacking a definitive answer, without compromising performance. Although previous studies have attempted to improve AA, they lack a standardised evaluation method and remain unsuitable for black-box models where token prediction probabilities are inaccessible. This makes comparative analysis challenging, especially for state-of-the-art closed-source commercial LLMs. This paper bridges this gap by introducing a black-box evaluation approach and a new dataset, Abstain-QA, crafted to rigorously assess AA across varied question types (answerable and unanswerable), domains (well-represented and under-represented), and task types (fact centric and reasoning). We also propose a new confusion matrix, the ''Answerable-Unanswerable Confusion Matrix'' (AUCM) which serves as the basis for evaluating AA, by offering a structured and precise approach for assessment. Finally, we explore the impact of three prompting strategies-Strict Prompting, Verbal Confidence Thresholding, and Chain-of-Thought (CoT)-on improving AA. Our results indicate that even powerful models like GPT-4, Mixtral 8x22b encounter difficulties with abstention; however, strategic approaches such as Strict prompting and CoT can enhance this capability.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
Partial Evidence Bench: Benchmarking Authorization-Limited Evidence in Agentic Systems
Partial Evidence Bench is a deterministic benchmark that measures agent correctness, completeness awareness, gap-report quality, and unsafe overclaiming in authorization-constrained evidence environments.
-
Don't Start What You Can't Finish: A Counterfactual Audit of Support-State Triage in LLM Agents
LLM agents overcommit on non-complete tasks at 41.7% unless given explicit support-state categories, which raise typed deferral accuracy to 91.7%.
-
BAS: A Decision-Theoretic Approach to Evaluating Large Language Model Confidence
BAS aggregates utility from an answer-or-abstain model across risk thresholds and is uniquely maximized by truthful confidence estimates.
-
Causal Evidence that Language Models use Confidence to Drive Behavior
Language models deploy multidimensional internal confidence representations and threshold-based policies to control abstention behavior, with causal support from activation steering experiments.
-
Auto-DSM Under the Lens: A Black-Box Evaluation Framework for LLM-Based DSM Generation
A black-box evaluation framework with multi-run metrics reveals that LLM-based DSM generation is sensitive to phrasing, exhibits hallucination, and fails to consistently acknowledge knowledge boundaries.
-
When Retrieval Metrics Mislead: Measuring Policy Signal in Long-Horizon Tool-Use Agents
Retrieved clauses yield macro-F1 within 0.02 of gold clauses (wide CI) despite 7% rank-1 exact match, indicating exact-match recall underestimates policy utility in this agent benchmark.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.