When Should LLMs Be Less Specific? Selective Abstraction for Reliable Long-Form Text Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.11908v2
• Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2026 13:48:01 GMT
• Title: When Should LLMs Be Less Specific? Selective Abstraction for Reliable Long-Form Text Generation
• Abstract summary: We introduce Selective Abstraction (SA), a framework that enables LLMs to trade specificity for reliability.<n>We develop a novel end-to-end pipeline for open-ended generation that instantiates risk as factual correctness.<n>Across six open-source models on the FactScore and LongFact-Objects benchmarks, atom-wise SA consistently outperforms existing baselines.
• Score: 13.218758523354103
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLMs are widely used, yet they remain prone to factual errors that erode user trust and limit adoption in high-risk settings. One approach to mitigate this risk is to equip models with uncertainty estimation mechanisms that abstain when confidence is low. However, this binary "all-or-nothing" approach is excessively restrictive in long-form settings, often discarding valuable information. We introduce Selective Abstraction (SA), a framework that enables LLMs to trade specificity for reliability by selectively reducing the detail of uncertain content. We first formalize SA through the lenses of selective risk and coverage. We then propose Atom-wise Selective Abstraction, a claim-level instantiation that decomposes responses into atomic claims (short, self-contained statements each expressing a single fact) and replaces uncertain atoms with higher confidence, less specific abstractions. To evaluate this framework, we develop a novel end-to-end pipeline for open-ended generation that instantiates risk as factual correctness and measures coverage using an information-theoretic measure of retained information. Across six open-source models on the FactScore and LongFact-Objects benchmarks, atom-wise SA consistently outperforms existing baselines, improving the area under the risk-coverage curve (AURC) by up to 27.73% over claim removal, demonstrating that reducing specificity can boost accuracy and reliability while preserving most of their original meaning.

Related papers

• Evaluating LLM Uncertainty in Long-Form Generation Using Deterministic Ground Truth [11.568922058618497]
  Long-form generation benchmarks tend to rely on fallible labels rather than deterministic ground truth.<n>We introduce Single-answer Atomic Long-form Target (SALT), a benchmark of six procedurally generated tasks with single deterministic long textual ground truths.<n>SALT enables controlled atom-level interventions throughout generation, revealing two separable drivers of future errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-04T13:25:18Z)
• From Sparse Features to Trustworthy Proxies: Certifying SAE-Based Interpretability [53.681678236115836]
  We study when can an SAE-based explanation be treated as a faithful view of an underlying frozen LM.<n>Our framework derives an upper bound on the base model's expected risk using four measurable quantities.<n>We show that the bound becomes non-vacuous on GPT-2 Small, Gemma-2B, and Llama-3-8B at practical sample sizes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-16T18:28:23Z)
• Steering LLM Viewpoints through Fabricated Evidence Injection [61.22850755490993]
  We introduce a two-phase attack framework that first repackages misleading statements with fabricated rationales, then instruct target LLMs to incorporate these viewpoints when responding to relevant queries.<n>Experiments on BBQ, ToxiGen, and our specialized dataset reveal that commercial LLMs without external safety classifiers remain highly vulnerable.<n>Building on this, we explore multiple defense strategies, among which a tailored safety policy enablesgpt-oss-safeguard to achieve 81% detection rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T14:48:23Z)
• Benchmarking LLM-Based Static Analysis for Secure Smart Contract Development: Reliability, Limitations, and Potential Hybrid Solutions [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into developer, but their reliability as autonomous security auditors remains unproven.<n>We assess whether current generative models are a viable replacement for, or only a complement to, traditional static-analysis tools.<n>Our findings indicate that LLM efficacy is undermined by both inherent lexical bias and a lack of rigorous validation of external data inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-11T19:10:47Z)
• LiveFMBench: Unveiling the Power and Limits of Agentic Workflows in Specification Generation [75.05397479715576]
  Large language models (LLMs) and agents have shown promising progress, but their true capabilities and failure modes remain unclear.<n>We present the first systematic and contamination-aware study of LLM- and agent-based formal specification generation for C programs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-02T11:31:33Z)
• LEC: Linear Expectation Constraints for False-Discovery Control in Selective Prediction and Routing Systems [95.35293543918762]
  Large language models (LLMs) often generate unreliable answers, while uncertainty methods fail to fully distinguish correct from incorrect predictions.<n>We address this issue through the lens of false discovery rate (FDR) control, ensuring that among all accepted predictions, the proportion of errors does not exceed a target risk level.<n>We propose LEC, which reinterprets selective prediction as a constrained decision problem by enforcing a Linear Expectation Constraint.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T11:27:09Z)
• Reasoning with Confidence: Efficient Verification of LLM Reasoning Steps via Uncertainty Heads [104.9566359759396]
  We propose a lightweight alternative for step-level reasoning verification based on data-driven uncertainty scores.<n>Our findings suggest that the internal states of LLMs encode their uncertainty and can serve as reliable signals for reasoning verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-09T03:38:29Z)
• Rethinking LLM Parametric Knowledge as Post-retrieval Confidence for Dynamic Retrieval and Reranking [23.1400319714807]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate inaccurate responses (hallucinations) when faced with questions beyond their knowledge scope.<n>Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) addresses this by leveraging external knowledge, but a critical challenge remains: determining whether retrieved contexts effectively enhance the models ability to answer specific queries.<n>This challenge underscores the importance of knowledge boundary awareness, which current methods-relying on discrete labels or limited signals-fail to address adequately.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T09:37:20Z)
• Can LLMs Detect Their Confabulations? Estimating Reliability in Uncertainty-Aware Language Models [24.72990207218907]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are prone to generating fluent but incorrect content, known as confabulation.<n>We investigate how in-context information influences model behavior and whether LLMs can identify their unreliable responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T16:12:36Z)
• Extending Epistemic Uncertainty Beyond Parameters Would Assist in Designing Reliable LLMs [40.7342896954488]
  We advocate for the adoption of a framework that provides a coherent foundation to reason about uncertainty and clarify the reducibility of uncertainty.<n>By supporting active resolution rather than passive avoidance, it opens the door to more reliable, transparent, and broadly applicable LLM systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T05:52:03Z)
• Do We Really Need Curated Malicious Data for Safety Alignment in Multi-modal Large Language Models? [83.53005932513155]
  Multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) have made significant progress, yet their safety alignment remains limited.<n>We propose finetuning MLLMs on a small set of benign instruct-following data with responses replaced by simple, clear rejection sentences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T09:03:51Z)
• Enhancing LLM Reliability via Explicit Knowledge Boundary Modeling [41.19330514054401]
  Large language models (LLMs) are prone to hallucination stemming from misaligned self-awareness.<n>We propose the Explicit Knowledge Boundary Modeling framework to integrate fast and slow reasoning systems to harmonize reliability and usability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T03:16:02Z)
• Mind the Confidence Gap: Overconfidence, Calibration, and Distractor Effects in Large Language Models [0.6091702876917281]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable proficiency in natural language tasks.<n>Overconfidence-misalignment between predicted confidence and true correctness poses significant risks in critical decision-making applications.<n>We present a comprehensive analysis on calibration in LLMs across nine LLMs and three factual Question-Answering datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T07:46:09Z)
• Revisiting Essential and Nonessential Settings of Evidential Deep Learning [70.82728812001807]
  Evidential Deep Learning (EDL) is an emerging method for uncertainty estimation. We propose Re-EDL, a simplified yet more effective variant of EDL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T04:27:07Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Fact-Checking the Output of Large Language Models via Token-Level Uncertainty Quantification [116.77055746066375]
  Large language models (LLMs) are notorious for hallucinating, i.e., producing erroneous claims in their output. We propose a novel fact-checking and hallucination detection pipeline based on token-level uncertainty quantification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T17:44:17Z)

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.