When Should LLMs Abstain? Chain-of-Self-Questioning for Selective Risk Control

Paper: 2609.17516 Authors: Ali Senol Categories: cs.CL, cs.AI

The Gap

Large language models can produce fluent answers when their factual support is weak. That is not a curiosity. It is the failure mode that makes a chatbot usable in demo and dangerous in production: the user cannot tell, from the surface of the text, whether the model knew or guessed.

Selective prediction — answer when confident, abstain otherwise — is the right formalization. The hard part is the gate. Logit thresholds are model-specific and brittle. External verifiers need labels or extra models. And chain-of-thought, the default reasoning scaffold, improves the answer but does not ask whether an answer should be given at all.

The paper’s framing is the useful move: make answer commitment conditional on an explicit assessment of the information required to answer a question. Not “am I sure?” in the abstract, but “what would I need to know, and do I have it?”

   THE FLUENCY / SUPPORT GAP

   model produces FLUENT text
     often with WEAK factual support
         |
         v
   surface of the answer CANNOT TELL the user
     knew  vs  guessed
         |
         v
   selective prediction is the right formalization
     answer when warranted, ABSTAIN otherwise
         |
         v
   BUT THE GATE IS HARD
     logit thresholds: model-specific, brittle
     external verifiers: need labels or extra models
     chain-of-thought: improves the answer
                      does NOT ask whether to answer
         |
         v
   CoSQ's move
     commitment conditional on an EXPLICIT assessment of
     the INFORMATION REQUIRED to answer
     not: "am I sure?"
     but: "what would I need, and do I have it?"

The Increment

One sentence: Before CoSQ, abstention gates were external thresholds or separate verifiers; after it, a prompt-only self-questioning scaffold makes answer-or-abstain an explicit, tunable decision that improves both wrong-commitment rate and answered accuracy across eleven model families.

Core Mechanism

CoSQ is prompt-only. That is the first design choice worth naming: no fine-tuning, no auxiliary head, no extra verifier model. The method has to work by changing what the model is asked to do before it commits.

The scaffold inserts a self-questioning stage whose output is not the answer but the conditions for answering. Three variants are evaluated. Grounded-CoSQ is the headline configuration. Critical-CoSQ and Adaptive-CoSQ are neighboring operating points on the same idea — different ways of deciding when the self-assessment is sufficient to commit.

The evaluation is unusually careful about protocol. Seventeen conditions on the 817-item TruthfulQA multiple-choice validation set, eleven open-weight and hosted model families, and a final balanced-option protocol. Numbers from that protocol:

• Grounded-CoSQ at tau = 0.90 reduces mean unconditional wrong-commitment rate from 13.1% under chain-of-thought to 8.9% — a 32.1% relative reduction.
• Answered accuracy rises from 86.9% to 89.7% while still answering 87.6% of questions.
• Both improvements hold for all eleven models and at every evaluated threshold. That last clause is what separates a real effect from a lucky operating point.
• Critical-CoSQ and Adaptive-CoSQ give neighboring points at 88.6% and 86.5% coverage, remaining more reliable than baseline.

A secondary Natural Questions Short-Answer evaluation provides convergent open-form evidence, so the result is not an artifact of multiple-choice formatting alone.

   CoSQ AT A GLANCE

   setup
     prompt-only (no fine-tune, no verifier model)
     TruthfulQA MC, 817 items
     17 conditions, 11 model families
     final protocol: balanced options

   Grounded-CoSQ, tau = 0.90
     wrong-commitment: 13.1% (CoT) -> 8.9%
       = 32.1% relative reduction
     answered accuracy: 86.9% -> 89.7%
     coverage: 87.6%
     BOTH improvements hold
       for ALL 11 models
       at EVERY evaluated threshold

   neighbors
     Critical-CoSQ   coverage 88.6%
     Adaptive-CoSQ   coverage 86.5%
     both still more reliable than baseline

   open-form check
     Natural Questions Short-Answer
     convergent evidence, not MC artifact

Think of it as forcing a student to write the rubric before answering, not after. Chain-of-thought says “show your work.” CoSQ says “first state what the work would require, then decide whether you can do it.” The decision becomes inspectable and tunable — tau is a dial on how demanding the self-assessment must be before commitment — instead of an opaque confidence score.

Key Concepts

• Commitment as a decision, not a side effect: the model should be able to decline, and the decline should be a first-class output.
• Information-requirement assessment as the gate: ask what the question needs, not whether the model “feels” sure.
• Prompt-only selective risk control: no parameter updates, no external verifier — useful where you cannot retrain or ship a second model.
• Threshold as a product knob: tau trades coverage against reliability in an explicit, reportable way.
• Cross-family robustness: improvements that hold for all eleven models at every threshold are much harder to dismiss as prompt luck.

Framework Shift

Before (always answer, or gate on logits):
  chain-of-thought improves the answer
  -> commitment is implicit
  -> wrong answers remain fluent and confident
  -> thresholds are model-specific and brittle

After (self-question, then commit or abstain):
  CoSQ inserts an explicit information-requirement check
  -> commitment is a tunable decision (tau)
  -> wrong-commitment drops ~32% relative
  -> answered accuracy rises, coverage stays high
  -> effect holds across 11 families and all thresholds

From “reason harder and hope,” to “decide whether you are entitled to answer, then answer,” the core shift is that abstention becomes an inspectable step inside the prompt rather than a post-hoc confidence filter.

Expert Assessment

Problem choice: Excellent. Selective prediction for LLMs is one of the few places where a methodological improvement maps directly onto deployment risk. The paper targets the right quantity — unconditional wrong-commitment, not just accuracy on answered items — which is what a careful operator actually cares about.

Method maturity: Prompt-only is both the virtue and the limit. It will not beat a well-trained selective head in every regime, and it spends tokens on the self-questioning stage. But it is immediately usable on closed and open models alike, and the three variants give a small but real operating-characteristic curve rather than a single point.

Experimental integrity: Strong for a paper of this kind. Seventeen conditions, eleven families, a named final protocol, relative and absolute numbers, and — the detail that does the most work — both improvements hold for all eleven models and at every evaluated threshold. That is the difference between a result and a cherry-picked tau. The Natural Questions secondary evaluation is the right kind of convergent check. Residual questions: how tau should be set without a held-out set, and how the method behaves under distribution shift rather than on a fixed benchmark.

Writing quality: The abstract is quantitative and ordered correctly: problem, mechanism, protocol, headline numbers, neighbors, secondary evidence, claim. One can reconstruct the contribution without the PDF.

Verdict: weak accept — careful protocol, cross-family robustness, and a tunable abstention gate that improves the risk-coverage tradeoff rather than merely shifting it.

Takeaways

• Measure the wrong-commitment rate, not only accuracy on answered items. Coverage without that number is incomplete.
• Ask “what does this question require?” before “what is my answer?” Self-questioning can be a gate, not just a reasoning aid.
• Prefer results that hold across model families and thresholds. A single best tau is weak evidence.
• Prompt-only methods are deployable where you cannot retrain. That constraint is often the real product constraint.