arXiv:2611.14661v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Kalai et al. propose stating the scoring rule in the prompt with an explicit threshold t, so that a model should answer only when its probability of being correct exceeds t. We probe each requirement of compliance on shared items, in 12 checkpoints from three post-training stages of four fully open 3-8B recipes, with exploratory models up to 32B. At t = 0.75, a line limiting the reply to an answer or "I abstain" (the abstention format) raised the mean abstention rate from 20% to 91%. Yet within this format, raising t from 0.5 to 0.9 changed it by only -0.8 percentage points. Without the line, the higher threshold even lowered abstention, and up to 40% of a checkpoint's items received decisions that no compliant policy with threshold-independent beliefs could make. Given the probability that their answer was correct, the checkpoints barely responded to the threshold in a forced-choice probe. Comparisons with self-assessment signals such as P(True) depended on the grader and on answer drift between prompts. An external threshold on recalibrated P(True) made coverage non-increasing in t by construction. Calibrated on the evaluation distribution (post hoc), it beat the abstention format at t = 0.5; calibrated on TriviaQA and applied to PopQA, however, it fell below that format at 0.75. On OLMo 3 7B, decisions trained on threshold-conditioned targets did not follow unseen thresholds consistently. A post-hoc variant trained at four thresholds answered less as t rose but still failed a pre-specified test, mainly on agreement with its training rule. A high abstention rate is not evidence of compliance: evaluations using stated scoring rules should report how often models abstain, whether decisions respond to the stated threshold, and which items they answer.
Abstract: Kalai et al. propose stating the scoring rule in the prompt with an explicit threshold t, so that a model should answer only when its probability of being correct exceeds t. We probe each requirement of compliance on shared items, in 12 checkpoints from three post-training stages of four fully open 3-8B recipes, with exploratory models up to 32B. At t = 0.75, a line limiting the reply to an answer or "I abstain" (the abstention format) raised the mean abstention rate from 20% to 91%. Yet within this format, raising t from 0.5 to 0.9 changed it by only -0.8 percentage points. Without the line, the higher threshold even lowered abstention, and up to 40% of a checkpoint's items received decisions that no compliant policy with threshold-independent beliefs could make. Given the probability that their answer was correct, the checkpoints barely responded to the threshold in a forced-choice probe. Comparisons with self-assessment signals such as P(True) depended on the grader and on answer drift between prompts. An external threshold on recalibrated P(True) made coverage non-increasing in t by construction. Calibrated on the evaluation distribution (post hoc), it beat the abstention format at t = 0.5; calibrated on TriviaQA and applied to PopQA, however, it fell below that format at 0.75. On OLMo 3 7B, decisions trained on threshold-conditioned targets did not follow unseen thresholds consistently. A post-hoc variant trained at four thresholds answered less as t rose but still failed a pre-specified test, mainly on agreement with its training rule. A high abstention rate is not evidence of compliance: evaluations using stated scoring rules should report how often models abstain, whether decisions respond to the stated threshold, and which items they answer.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article:
Abstention Is Not Threshold Compliance: Stated Scoring Rules in Open Language Models