Abstract
A useful language model should know when to answer and when to say "I don't know." Can we improve that decision by training the model itself or by training a separate component to check its answers? We study both approaches on Qwen3-14B for factual questions, using a score that rewards correct answers, penalizes mistakes, and allows abstention. Across three training seeds and two held-out confidence thresholds, a learned answer selector improves threshold-averaged utility over the original model's calibrated confidence filter. On TriviaQA, mean coverage increases from 20.2% to 30.9%, while the pooled error rate among scored answers decreases from 23.0% to 14.5% under exact-match grading. The tested reinforcement-learning changes do not establish consistent gains. On NQ-Open, the selector improves threshold-averaged utility over the filter but still performs worse than always abstaining. A partial human-reviewed audit preserves the TriviaQA finding. Our results support learning to select answers in this setting while showing that reliable abstention across datasets remains unresolved.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.13821
