CLAIFeb 15

Knowing When Not to Answer: Abstention-Aware Scientific Reasoning

arXiv:2602.14189v1Has Code
Originality Incremental advance
AI Analysis

This work addresses the issue of unreliable conclusions in scientific reasoning for AI applications, offering a model-agnostic approach to improve reliability, though it is incremental in building on existing verification methods.

The paper tackles the problem of scientific claim verification by proposing an abstention-aware framework that decomposes claims into conditions and uses natural language inference to decide whether to support, refute, or abstain, finding that confidence-based abstention substantially reduces error risk at moderate coverage levels across benchmarks like SciFact and PubMedQA.

Large language models are increasingly used to answer and verify scientific claims, yet existing evaluations typically assume that a model must always produce a definitive answer. In scientific settings, however, unsupported or uncertain conclusions can be more harmful than abstaining. We study this problem through an abstention-aware verification framework that decomposes scientific claims into minimal conditions, audits each condition against available evidence using natural language inference (NLI), and selectively decides whether to support, refute, or abstain. We evaluate this framework across two complementary scientific benchmarks: SciFact and PubMedQA, covering both closed-book and open-domain evidence settings. Experiments are conducted with six diverse language models, including encoder-decoder, open-weight chat models, and proprietary APIs. Across all benchmarks and models, we observe that raw accuracy varies only modestly across architectures, while abstention plays a critical role in controlling error. In particular, confidence-based abstention substantially reduces risk at moderate coverage levels, even when absolute accuracy improvements are limited. Our results suggest that in scientific reasoning tasks, the primary challenge is not selecting a single best model, but rather determining when available evidence is sufficient to justify an answer. This work highlights abstention-aware evaluation as a practical and model-agnostic lens for assessing scientific reliability, and provides a unified experimental basis for future work on selective reasoning in scientific domains. Code is available at https://github.com/sabdaljalil2000/ai4science .

Foundations

The foundational work for this paper's niche, ranked by how specifically the neighbourhood builds on it — not by global fame.

Your Notes