Daily Papers

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.

Vision-language reinforcement learning has recently shown strong target-present localization for camouflaged object detection (COD). Yet localization is only one side of the decision: when the agent faces an ordinary image with no camouflaged target, will it still claim that a camouflaged object exists? Standard COD training and evaluation data are positive-only, so agents optimized under this setting can acquire an over-detect bias, a task-specific form of object hallucination that standard COD evaluation leaves unmeasured. To quantify this target-absent behavior, we construct Counterfactual COD (CF-COD), a paired benchmark that removes the camouflaged target from each held-out COD evaluation image while preserving a plausible background. CF-COD evaluates whether a model detects the target on the original image and abstains on the target-absent counterfactual, summarized by Pair Accuracy (PA). We further introduce CFCamo, a paired counterfactual framework for COD with abstention. For training, CFCamo optimizes a Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct agent with Counterfactual Sequence Policy Optimization (CSPO), which samples paired original-counterfactual rollouts and uses a Counterfactual Paired Reward (CPR) to couple original-image detection with counterfactual abstention. On CAMO-test, CFCamo improves S_alpha by +3.7 pp over the prior RL-based COD baseline; across CF-COD, it reaches 80.0-90.8% PA. Ablations show that removing counterfactual coupling reduces PA to 1.4-5.2% despite strong target-present COD scores, showing that target-present evaluation alone does not characterize detect-or-abstain behavior. Overall, these results indicate that CFCamo improves COD agents by coupling target-present detection with target-absent abstention, rather than merely strengthening target-present localization. Code and data are available at https://github.com/suhang2000/CFCamo.

In critical applications, it is vital for classifiers to defer decision-making to humans. We propose a post-hoc method that makes existing classifiers selectively abstain from predicting certain samples. Our abstaining classifier is incentivized to maintain the original accuracy for each sub-population (i.e. no harm) while achieving a set of group fairness definitions to a user specified degree. To this end, we design an Integer Programming (IP) procedure that assigns abstention decisions for each training sample to satisfy a set of constraints. To generalize the abstaining decisions to test samples, we then train a surrogate model to learn the abstaining decisions based on the IP solutions in an end-to-end manner. We analyze the feasibility of the IP procedure to determine the possible abstention rate for different levels of unfairness tolerance and accuracy constraint for achieving no harm. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to identify the theoretical relationships between the constraint parameters and the required abstention rate. Our theoretical results are important since a high abstention rate is often infeasible in practice due to a lack of human resources. Our framework outperforms existing methods in terms of fairness disparity without sacrificing accuracy at similar abstention rates.

Test-time scaling increases inference-time computation by allowing models to generate long reasoning chains, and has shown strong performance across many domains. However, in this work, we show that this approach is not yet effective for knowledge-intensive tasks, where high factual accuracy and low hallucination rates are essential. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of test-time scaling using 12 reasoning models on two knowledge-intensive benchmarks. Our results reveal that increasing test-time computation does not consistently improve accuracy and, in many cases, it even leads to more hallucinations. We then analyze how extended reasoning affects hallucination behavior. We find that reduced hallucinations often result from the model choosing to abstain after thinking more, rather than from improved factual recall. Conversely, for some models, longer reasoning encourages attempts on previously unanswered questions, many of which result in hallucinations. Case studies show that extended reasoning can induce confirmation bias, leading to overconfident hallucinations. Despite these limitations, we observe that compared to non-thinking, enabling thinking remains beneficial. Code and data are available at https://github.com/XuZhao0/tts-knowledge

We study a variant of quantum hypothesis testing wherein an additional 'inconclusive' measurement outcome is added, allowing one to abstain from attempting to discriminate the hypotheses. The error probabilities are then conditioned on a successful attempt, with inconclusive trials disregarded. We completely characterise this task in both the single-shot and asymptotic regimes, providing exact formulas for the optimal error probabilities. In particular, we prove that the asymptotic error exponent of discriminating any two quantum states ρ and σ is given by the Hilbert projective metric D_{max}(ρ|σ) + D_{max}(σ| ρ) in asymmetric hypothesis testing, and by the Thompson metric max { D_{max}(ρ|σ), D_{max}(σ| ρ) } in symmetric hypothesis testing. This endows these two quantities with fundamental operational interpretations in quantum state discrimination. Our findings extend to composite hypothesis testing, where we show that the asymmetric error exponent with respect to any convex set of density matrices is given by a regularisation of the Hilbert projective metric. We apply our results also to quantum channels, showing that no advantage is gained by employing adaptive or even more general discrimination schemes over parallel ones, in both the asymmetric and symmetric settings. Our state discrimination results make use of no properties specific to quantum mechanics and are also valid in general probabilistic theories.

Test-time scaling via solution sampling and aggregation has become a key paradigm for improving the reasoning performance of Large Language Models (LLMs). While reward model selection is commonly employed in this approach, it often fails to identify minority-yet-correct answers, which limits its effectiveness beyond that of simple majority voting. We argue that this limitation stems from a lack of informative critique signals during verifier training. To bridge this gap, we introduce Mirror-Critique, a framework that trains a verifier with informative critiques. Our key insight is to leverage the rich critique signal by contrasting model-generated solutions with ground-truth solutions. We deploy a small instruction-tuned model to synthesize high-quality critique data with rejection sampling that teaches the verifier not only what is wrong, but also why. The synthetic data is used to cold-start the LLMs in the RLVR process to further improve the verification ability. The resulting Mirror-Verifier is deployed to evaluate candidate solutions by generating multiple critiques per solution, aggregating them into a verify score used for weighted voting or selective abstention. The experimental results show that our Mirror-Verifier significantly outperforms majority voting in terms of solution accuracy and also improves the solver's honesty to recognize and abstain from answering beyond its capability boundaries.

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.

False-presupposition QA (FPQA) tests LLMs on their ability to identify false presuppositions in questions and abstain or correct them rather than reinforcing false assumptions. The common approach reduces the task to prompting LLMs to extract presuppositions and fact checking each presupposition. While the performance on dedicated benchmarks keeps improving, evaluation largely focuses on questions with false presuppositions (FPQs) while ignoring the performance on ``normal'' questions (TPQs). Since many benchmarks over-represent FPQs compared to their natural occurrence, the result is that performance on these benchmarks doesn't reflect real-world QA performance. Through extensive experiments across various model families, sizes, and benchmarks, we show that methods that perform better on FPQs tend to perform worse on TPQs. Our analysis reveals this is the result of weak fact checking modules that reject also true presuppositions. We hope our findings will help guide future work toward FPQA methods that generalize well to realistic settings.

Recent work has shown that models trained to the same objective, and which achieve similar measures of accuracy on consistent test data, may nonetheless behave very differently on individual predictions. This inconsistency is undesirable in high-stakes contexts, such as medical diagnosis and finance. We show that this inconsistent behavior extends beyond predictions to feature attributions, which may likewise have negative implications for the intelligibility of a model, and one's ability to find recourse for subjects. We then introduce selective ensembles to mitigate such inconsistencies by applying hypothesis testing to the predictions of a set of models trained using randomly-selected starting conditions; importantly, selective ensembles can abstain in cases where a consistent outcome cannot be achieved up to a specified confidence level. We prove that that prediction disagreement between selective ensembles is bounded, and empirically demonstrate that selective ensembles achieve consistent predictions and feature attributions while maintaining low abstention rates. On several benchmark datasets, selective ensembles reach zero inconsistently predicted points, with abstention rates as low 1.5%.

The hallucination of code generation models hinders their applicability to systems requiring higher safety standards. One critical bottleneck in addressing code hallucination is the difficulty of identifying the functional correctness of generated code, due to its unnatural form. We address this core bottleneck by automatically generating unit tests using dynamic code analysis tools, leveraging the executable nature of code. Accordingly, we propose a selective code generator that abstains from uncertain generations -- based on the functional correctness evaluated by generated unit tests -- to theoretically control the correctness among non-abstained answers, \ie the false discovery rate. Finally, we propose to use generated unit tests in evaluation as well as in learning for precise code evaluation, calling this paradigm FuzzEval. We demonstrate the efficacy of our method along with the controllability of code hallucination and reasonable selection efficiency.