Answering the Unanswerable Is to Err Knowingly: Analyzing and Mitigating Abstention Failures in Large Reasoning Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18760v1
• Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 07:37:56 GMT
• Title: Answering the Unanswerable Is to Err Knowingly: Analyzing and Mitigating Abstention Failures in Large Reasoning Models
• Authors: Yi Liu, Xiangyu Liu, Zequn Sun, Wei Hu,
• Abstract summary: Large reasoning models (LRMs) have shown remarkable progress on complex reasoning tasks.<n>We find that LRMs continually fail to provide appropriate abstentions when confronted with unanswerable questions.<n>We propose a lightweight, two-stage method that combines cognitive monitoring with inference-time intervention.
• Score: 36.56061020865792
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large reasoning models (LRMs) have shown remarkable progress on complex reasoning tasks. However, some questions posed to LRMs are inherently unanswerable, such as math problems lacking sufficient conditions. We find that LRMs continually fail to provide appropriate abstentions when confronted with these unanswerable questions. In this paper, we systematically analyze, investigate, and resolve this issue for trustworthy AI. We first conduct a detailed analysis of the distinct response behaviors of LRMs when facing unanswerable questions. Then, we show that LRMs possess sufficient cognitive capabilities to recognize the flaws in these questions. However, they fail to exhibit appropriate abstention behavior, revealing a misalignment between their internal cognition and external response. Finally, to resolve this issue, we propose a lightweight, two-stage method that combines cognitive monitoring with inference-time intervention. Experimental results demonstrate that our method significantly improves the abstention rate while maintaining the overall reasoning performance.

Related papers

• Beware of Reasoning Overconfidence: Pitfalls in the Reasoning Process for Multi-solution Tasks [54.31998314008198]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in reasoning tasks requiring a single correct answer, but they perform poorly in multi-solution tasks.<n>We attribute this limitation to textbfreasoning overconfidence: a tendency to express undue certainty in an incomplete solution set.<n>We propose the textbfcognitive-rigidity hypothesis, which posits that overconfidence arises when the reasoning process prematurely converges on a narrow set of thought paths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T14:35:06Z)
• From <Answer> to <Think>: Multidimensional Supervision of Reasoning Process for LLM Optimization [62.07990937720985]
  Dimension-level Reward Model (DRM) is a new supervision framework for Large Language Models.<n>DRM evaluates the quality of a reasoning process along three fundamental, complementary, and interpretable dimensions.<n> Experimental results show that DRM provides effective supervision signals, guides the optimization of LLMs and enhances their reasoning ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T14:29:15Z)
• On the Self-awareness of Large Reasoning Models' Capability Boundaries [46.74014595035246]
  We investigate whether Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) possess self-awareness of capability boundaries.<n>For black-box models, reasoning expressions reveal boundary signals, with accelerated growing confidence trajectory for solvable problems but convergent uncertainty trajectory for unsolvable ones.<n>For white-box models, we show that hidden states of the last input token encode boundary information, with solvable and unsolvable problems linearly separable even before reasoning begins.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:40:47Z)
• Reasoning or Retrieval? A Study of Answer Attribution on Large Reasoning Models [15.797612515648412]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) exhibit unprecedented capabilities in solving complex problems through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning.<n>Recent studies reveal that their final answers often contradict their own reasoning traces.<n>We hypothesize that this inconsistency stems from two competing mechanisms for generating answers: CoT reasoning and memory retrieval.<n>We introduce FARL, a novel fine-tuning framework that integrates memory unlearning with reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T01:13:33Z)
• Beyond Solving Math Quiz: Evaluating the Ability of Large Reasoning Models to Ask for Information [21.562453754113072]
  Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable problem-solving abilities in mathematics.<n>We propose a new dataset consisting of two types of incomplete problems with diverse contexts.<n>Based on the dataset, our systematical evaluation of LRMs reveals their inability in proactively asking for information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-15T06:42:00Z)
• AbstentionBench: Reasoning LLMs Fail on Unanswerable Questions [32.871820908561936]
  AbstentionBench is a benchmark for holistically evaluating abstention across 20 diverse datasets.<n>We find that reasoning fine-tuning degrades abstention even for math and science domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-10T17:57:30Z)
• The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity [16.266145641151375]
  Large Reasoning Models generate detailed thinking processes before providing answers.<n>We show that LRMs face a complete accuracy collapse beyond certain complexities.<n>We also investigate the reasoning traces in more depth, studying the patterns of explored solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-07T22:42:29Z)
• Are Reasoning Models More Prone to Hallucination? [70.04436965009072]
  Recently evolved large reasoning models (LRMs) show powerful performance in solving complex tasks with long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning capability.<n>Are reasoning models more prone to hallucination?<n>This paper addresses the question from three perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T16:53:41Z)
• BARREL: Boundary-Aware Reasoning for Factual and Reliable LRMs [87.24843751412783]
  We propose BARREL, a framework that promotes concise and boundary-aware factual reasoning.<n>Our experiments show that BARREL-training increases the reliability of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B from 39.33% to 61.48%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T07:27:34Z)
• Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and Inconsistencies [66.30619782227173]
  Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing.<n>We identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance.<n>We find that explanations increase reliance on both correct and incorrect responses.<n>We observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T16:35:41Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Recursive Chain-of-Feedback Prevents Performance Degradation from Redundant Prompting [0.4662017507844857]
  This paper studies such repetitive behavior and its effect by defining a novel setting, Chain-of-Feedback (CoF) To alleviate these troubles, we propose a novel method, Recursive Chain-of-Feedback (R-CoF)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-05T00:44:28Z)
• Examining LLMs' Uncertainty Expression Towards Questions Outside Parametric Knowledge [35.067234242461545]
  Large language models (LLMs) express uncertainty in situations where they lack sufficient parametric knowledge to generate reasonable responses. This work aims to systematically investigate LLMs' behaviors in such situations, emphasizing the trade-off between honesty and helpfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:02:40Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.