We study the Bayesian fixed-budget best-arm identification problem in which a learner can abstain from making a terminal recommendation. Subject to an abstention budget $α$, we analyze the probability of undetected error--the risk of recommending a suboptimal arm without abstaining. Our central finding is that abstention induces a phase transition: without abstention, the error probability decays polynomially in the sampling budget $T$; in contrast, introducing any small positive abstention budget shifts this to an exponential decay. For Gaussian priors and rewards, in the regime $T\to\infty$ followed by $α\downarrow0$, we establish exact matching information-theoretic lower bounds and algorithmic upper bounds on the optimal error exponent, which takes the form $\exp(-\frac{α^{2}T}{8κ_ν^{2}})$. The hardness parameter $κ_ν$ represents the prior density of the top-two gap at zero, highlighting that nearly tied instances drive the fundamental error. We introduce an adaptive algorithm, PGWS, that successfully achieves this optimal exponent by expending its abstention budget on statistically ambiguous instances. We further demonstrate that this polynomial-to-exponential improvement is exclusively a Bayesian phenomenon--in the frequentist setting, abstention only affects lower-order exponent terms. We also extend our results beyond the Gaussian model.

For Large Language Models (LLMs) to be reliably deployed in both everyday and high-stakes domains, knowing when not to answer is equally critical as answering correctly. Real-world user queries, which can be underspecified, ill-posed, or fundamentally unanswerable, require LLMs to reason about uncertainty and selectively abstain--i.e., refuse to answer definitively. However, abstention remains understudied, without a systematic evaluation framework for modern LLMs. In this work, we introduce AbstentionBench: a large-scale benchmark for holistically evaluating abstention across 20 diverse datasets, including questions with unknown answers, underspecification, false premises, subjective interpretations, and outdated information. Evaluating 20 frontier LLMs reveals abstention is an unsolved problem, and one where scaling models is of little use. While recent reasoning LLMs have shown impressive results in complex problem solving, surprisingly, we find that reasoning fine-tuning degrades abstention (by 24% on average), even for math and science domains on which reasoning models are explicitly trained. We find that while a carefully crafted system prompt can boost abstention in practice, it does not resolve models' fundamental inability to reason about uncertainty. We release AbstentionBenchto foster research into advancing LLM reliability.2

We introduce Martingale Doppelgänger-Eval, a public shadow-market benchmark for auditing whether vision-language models (VLMs) use candlestick evidence rather than extrapolate past trends. The central difficulty is identification: on real market histories, chart evidence and trend are strongly coupled, so an observational score cannot determine whether a fluent technical-analysis narrative is grounded in local visual evidence. We prove this limitation formally: no evaluation functional computed from observational chart--label data can distinguish a grounded responder from a trend-shortcut responder under strong coupling, whereas matched evidence interventions separate the same responders at an exponential rate and trend--label swaps provide an independent shortcut stress test. The benchmark therefore evaluates frozen VLMs on rendered OHLCV charts under four controlled mechanisms: a martingale-null market, injected-alpha counterfactual pairs, trend-confounder swaps, and regime shifts. A structural behavioral model identifies null-market bias, trend sensitivity, evidence sensitivity, prompt/renderer fragility, and evidence faithfulness; the accompanying statistical toolkit provides minimum detectable effects, block-aware sequential testing for metered APIs, and an overlap-weighted artifact check. Across frozen commercial and open VLMs, the identified regression assigns large positive coefficients to past trend but evidence coefficients that are zero or opposite to the rule-implied sign. Matched-pair analyses show that models either ignore injected candlestick semantics or move opposite to the rule-implied direction conditional on responding. The benchmark isolates a failure mode that standard observational chart benchmarks cannot detect and gives a reusable audit template for time-series imagery with controllable label mechanisms.

We propose new learning algorithms for building selective classifiers, which are predictors that are allowed to abstain on some fraction of the domain. We study the model where a classifier may abstain from predicting at a fixed cost. Building on the recent framework on multigroup fairness and omniprediction, given a prespecified class of loss functions, we provide an algorithm for building a single classifier that learns abstentions and predictions optimally for every loss in the entire class, where the abstentions are decided efficiently for each specific loss function by applying a fixed post-processing function. Our algorithm and theoretical guarantees generalize the previously-known algorithms for learning selective classifiers in formal learning-theoretic models. We then extend the traditional multigroup fairness algorithms to the selective classification setting and show that we can use a calibrated and multiaccurate predictor to efficiently build selective classifiers that abstain optimally not only globally but also locally within each of the groups in any pre-specified collection of possibly intersecting subgroups of the domain, and are also accurate when they do not abstain. We show how our abstention algorithms can be used as conformal prediction methods in the binary classification setting to achieve both marginal and group-conditional coverage guarantees for an intersecting collection of groups. We provide empirical evaluations for all of our theoretical results, demonstrating the practicality of our learning algorithms for abstaining optimally and fairly.

A challenge in human-AI decision-making is to balance three factors: the correctness of predictions, the cost of knowledge and reasoning complexity, and the confidence about whether to abstain from automated answers or escalate to human experts. In this work, we present a cascaded LLM decision framework that adaptively delegates tasks across multiple tiers of expertise - a base model for initial candidate answers, a more capable and knowledgeable (but costlier) large model, and a human expert for when the model cascade abstains.

Language model outputs are not always reliable, thus prompting research into how to adapt model responses based on uncertainty. Common approaches include: abstention, where models refrain from generating responses when uncertain; and linguistic calibration, where models hedge their statements using uncertainty quantifiers. However, abstention can withhold valuable information, while linguistically calibrated responses are often challenging to leverage in downstream tasks. We propose a unified view, Conformal Linguistic Calibration (CLC), which reinterprets linguistic calibration as answer set prediction. First we present a framework connecting abstention and linguistic calibration through the lens of linguistic pragmatics. We then describe an implementation of CLC that allows for controlling the level of imprecision in model responses. Results demonstrate our method produces calibrated outputs with conformal guarantees on factual accuracy. Further, our approach enables fine-tuning models to perform uncertainty-aware adaptive claim rewriting, offering a controllable balance between factuality and specificity.

Large Language Models remain plagued by hallucinations. Recent work has sought to tame their prevalence using statistical techniques based on conformal prediction, with both theoretical and empirical success. However, these methods operate in a post-hoc fashion, treating the sampling procedure itself as atomic and then surgically altering samples to remove hallucinated claims. This disconnect between filtering and generation can result in samples that are incoherent, inconsistent, or simply unlikely under the model itself. Moreover, post-hoc surgery is unable to shift probability mass towards more useful and helpful responses. To address these issues, we propose to instead sample from approximations to an LLM posterior, where the conditioning event corresponds to a calibrated, high-scoring region. We develop a calibration procedure tailored to the setting of conditional sequential generation that effectively identifies this region and achieves target risk control. Empirically, we apply our method to case studies focused on open-ended biography generation and mathematical problem solving; compared to prior work, we obtain the same statistical guarantees, with higher downstream utility.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning with self-consistency improves performance by aggregating multiple sampled reasoning paths. In this setting, correctness is no longer tied to a single reasoning trace but to the aggregation rule over a pool of candidate paths, making aggregation uncertainty the central challenge. This issue is critical where confidently incorrect answers are far more costly than abstentions. We introduce a conformal procedure for CoT reasoning that directly addresses aggregation uncertainty. Our approach replaces majority voting with weighted score aggregation over reasoning paths and calibrates an abstention rule using conformal risk control. This approach leads to finite-sample guarantees on the confident-error rate--the probability that the system answers and is wrong. We further identify score separability as the key condition under which abstention provably improves selective accuracy, and derive closed-form expressions that predict accuracy gains from calibration data alone. The method is fully inference-time, and requires no retraining. Across four benchmarks, four open-source models, and three score classes, realized confident-error rates are consistent with the prescribed targets up to calibration-split and test-set variability. Our method achieves $90.1\%$ selective accuracy on GSM8K by abstaining on less than $5\%$ of problems, compared with $82\%$ accuracy under majority-voting baseline.

We study the problem of sequential prediction in the stochastic setting with an1 adversary that is allowed to inject clean-label adversarial (or out-of-distribution)2 examples. Algorithms designed to handle purely stochastic data tend to fail in the3 presence of such adversarial examples, often leading to erroneous predictions. This4 is undesirable in many high-stakes applications such as medical recommendations,5 where abstaining from predictions on adversarial examples is preferable to mis-6 classification. On the other hand, assuming fully adversarial data leads to very7 pessimistic bounds that are often vacuous in practice.8 To capture this motivation, we propose a new model of sequential prediction that9 sits between the purely stochastic and fully adversarial settings by allowing the10 learner to abstain from making a prediction at no cost on adversarial examples.11