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 (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14661
