Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Characterizing LLM Abstention Behavior in Science QA with Context Perturbations

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

arxiv 2404.12452 v2 pith:FRVSB3SL submitted 2024-04-18 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords contextabstentiongoldperformanceabstainansweringirrelevantllms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The correct model response in the face of uncertainty is to abstain from answering a question so as not to mislead the user. In this work, we study the ability of LLMs to abstain from answering context-dependent science questions when provided insufficient or incorrect context. We probe model sensitivity in several settings: removing gold context, replacing gold context with irrelevant context, and providing additional context beyond what is given. In experiments on four QA datasets with six LLMs, we show that performance varies greatly across models, across the type of context provided, and also by question type; in particular, many LLMs seem unable to abstain from answering boolean questions using standard QA prompts. Our analysis also highlights the unexpected impact of abstention performance on QA task accuracy. Counter-intuitively, in some settings, replacing gold context with irrelevant context or adding irrelevant context to gold context can improve abstention performance in a way that results in improvements in task performance. Our results imply that changes are needed in QA dataset design and evaluation to more effectively assess the correctness and downstream impacts of model abstention.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across five LLMs and ten no-consensus datasets, neutrality drops sharply when models act as pairwise judges, pointwise judges, or debaters compared to when they generate answers with an explicit neutral option.

  2. VisionTrap: Unanswerable Questions On Visual Data

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    VisionTrap shows that GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, Gemini Flash 2.5, and LLaVA tend to answer unanswerable visual questions rather than abstain, especially when given multiple-choice options.

Pith tools