← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2610.16318 · v2
Strong yet Controllable LLM Abstention without Learning to Abstain
首次提交 2026-10-12 15:41
版本更新 2026-10-26 14:48
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:36
摘要
Large language models (LLMs) can reduce hallucination by abstaining from questions they would likely get wrong. Abstention can be implemented outside the model (selective answering) using a confidence threshold that controls the answer rate (coverage), or learned inside it (abstention training), which can perform better but fixes coverage once trained. To compare the two, we match their coverage and decompose risk (error rate) into answering ability and distinguishing ability, i.e., how well the model answers and how accurately it abstains, respectively. The decomposition shows that abstention training performs better mainly by answering better: with strong confidence estimators, the two have nearly equal distinguishing ability. This motivates Train for Accuracy, then Post-hoc Select (TAPS), a modular approach that keeps coverage controllable, needs only standard post-training and an off-the-shelf confidence estimator, and benefits from advances in either component. Across three LLMs and three factual QA benchmarks, TAPS with a probing-based confidence estimator attains 1.5--9.4 percentage points lower mean risk than three representative abstention training methods at matched coverage. Within TAPS, accuracy training often weakens the model's own confidence signals, yet refitting the estimator largely preserves distinguishing ability. Together, these results establish TAPS as a strong yet controllable baseline and raise the bar for future abstention training: sacrificing control over coverage should yield gains beyond what can be achieved by optimizing answering and abstaining separately.
作者备注：Project page: https://zhangjunwei0233.github.io/projects/taps/
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v2 · 2026-10-26 14:48 · 最新观测版本
Strong yet Controllable LLM Abstention without Learning to Abstain
Large language models (LLMs) can reduce hallucination by abstaining from questions they would likely get wrong. Abstention can be implemented outside the model (selective answering) using a confidence threshold that controls the answer rate (coverage), or learned inside it (abstention training), which can perform better but fixes coverage once trained. To compare the two, we match their coverage and decompose risk (error rate) into answering ability and distinguishing ability, i.e., how well the model answers and how accurately it abstains, respectively. The decomposition shows that abstention training performs better mainly by answering better: with strong confidence estimators, the two have nearly equal distinguishing ability. This motivates Train for Accuracy, then Post-hoc Select (TAPS), a modular approach that keeps coverage controllable, needs only standard post-training and an off-the-shelf confidence estimator, and benefits from advances in either component. Across three LLMs and three factual QA benchmarks, TAPS with a probing-based confidence estimator attains 1.5--9.4 percentage points lower mean risk than three representative abstention training methods at matched coverage. Within TAPS, accuracy training often weakens the model's own confidence signals, yet refitting the estimator largely preserves distinguishing ability. Together, these results establish TAPS as a strong yet controllable baseline and raise the bar for future abstention training: sacrificing control over coverage should yield gains beyond what can be achieved by optimizing answering and abstaining separately.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗