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

In many real-world settings exact perturbation sets to be used by an adversary are not plausibly available to a learner. While prior literature has studied both scenarios with completely known and completely unknown perturbation sets, we propose an in-between setting of learning with respect to a class of perturbation sets. We show that in this setting we can improve on previous results with completely unknown perturbation sets, while still addressing the concerns of not having perfect knowledge of these sets in real life. In particular, we give the first positive results for the learnability of infinite Littlestone classes when having access to a perfect-attack oracle. We also consider a setting of learning with abstention, where predictions are considered robustness violations, only when the wrong label prediction is made within the perturbation set. We show there are classes for which perturbation-set unaware learning without query access is possible, but abstention is required.

Large language models (LLMs) using chain-of-thought reasoning often waste substantial compute by producing long, incorrect responses. Abstention can mitigate this by withholding outputs unlikely to be correct. While most abstention methods decide to withhold outputs before or after generation, dynamic mid-generation abstention considers early termination of unpromising reasoning traces at each token position. Prior work has explored empirical variants of this idea, but principled guidance for the abstention rule remains lacking. We present a formal analysis of dynamic abstention for LLMs, modeling abstention as an explicit action within a regularized reinforcement learning framework. An abstention reward parameter controls the trade-off between compute and information. We show that abstaining when the value function falls below this reward strictly outperforms natural baselines under general conditions. We further derive a principled and efficient method to approximate the value function. Empirical results on mathematical reasoning and toxicity avoidance tasks support our theory and demonstrate improved selective accuracy over existing methods.

We present a new boosting algorithm for the key scenario of binary classification with abstention where the algorithm can abstain from predicting the label of a point, at the price of a fixed cost. At each round, our algorithm selects a pair of functions, a base predictor and a base abstention function. We define convex upper bounds for the natural loss function associated to this problem, which we prove to be calibrated with respect to the Bayes solution. Our algorithm benefits from general margin-based learning guarantees which we derive for ensembles of pairs of base predictor and abstention functions, in terms of the Rademacher complexities of the corresponding function classes. We give convergence guarantees for our algorithm along with a linear-time weak-learning algorithm for abstention stumps. We also report the results of several experiments suggesting that our algorithm provides a significant improvement in practice over two confidence-based algorithms.

We study the classic problem of prediction with expert advice under bandit feedback. Our model assumes that one action, corresponding to the learner's abstention from play, has no reward or loss on every trial. We propose the CBA (Confidence-rated Bandits with Abstentions) algorithm, which exploits this assumption to obtain reward bounds that can significantly improve those of the classical Exp4 algorithm. Our problem can be construed as the aggregation of confidence-rated predictors, with the learner having the option to abstain from play. We are the first to achieve bounds on the expected cumulative reward for general confidence-rated predictors. In the special case of specialists, we achieve a novel reward bound, significantly improving previous bounds of SpecialistExp (treating abstention as another action). We discuss how CBA can be applied to the problem of adversarial contextual bandits with the option of abstaining from selecting any action. We are able to leverage a wide range of inductive biases, outperforming previous approaches both theoretically and in preliminary experimental analysis. Additionally, we achieve a reduction in runtime from quadratic to almost linear in the number of contexts for the specific case of metric space contexts.