aiqbench analysis
This study introduces ArcticQA, a specialized dataset and benchmark designed to evaluate how well large language models detect when they lack sufficient evidence to answer scientific questions in the Arctic domain. By comparing model performance when correct answers are present versus replaced with distractors, the research reveals significant variations in abstention rates across major model families, highlighting current limitations in reliable uncertainty quantification. These findings provide a critical resource for researchers aiming to improve the safety and reliability of AI systems in high-stakes scientific contexts.
Arctic Questions, Missing Answers: A Dataset and Benchmark for LLM Abstention in Arctic Science
arXiv:2610.09446v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) should abstain from scientific multiple-choice questions when no option is valid, but frequent abstention alone does not demonstrate sensitivity to answer availability. We introduce ArcticQA, a dataset of 194 questions derived from primary Arctic research, with automated checks of answer support and distractor contradiction against source evidence. We further develop ArcticAbstain, a paired benchmark comparing answer-present and answer-absent conditions, with the correct answer replaced by a distractor in the latter and an explicit abstention option in both. We evaluate eight models from the Gemini, Claude, and ChatGPT families at high reasoning effort, with three trials per condition, yielding 9,312 recorded responses. Answer-present abstention rates range from 0.0% to 63.0%, whereas replacing the correct answer increases abstention by 5.05 percentage points on average. These findings highlight substantial baseline differences and the need to evaluate abstention frequency and responsiveness jointly. The dataset and benchmark are available at https://github.com/BenWilcox8/arctic-qa.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) should abstain from scientific multiple-choice questions when no option is valid, but frequent abstention alone does not demonstrate sensitivity to answer availability. We introduce ArcticQA, a dataset of 194 questions derived from primary Arctic research, with automated checks of answer support and distractor contradiction against source evidence. We further develop ArcticAbstain, a paired benchmark comparing answer-present and answer-absent conditions, with the correct answer replaced by a distractor in the latter and an explicit abstention option in both. We evaluate eight models from the Gemini, Claude, and ChatGPT families at high reasoning effort, with three trials per condition, yielding 9,312 recorded responses. Answer-present abstention rates range from 0.0% to 63.0%, whereas replacing the correct answer increases abstention by 5.05 percentage points on average. These findings highlight substantial baseline differences and the need to evaluate abstention frequency and responsiveness jointly. The dataset and benchmark are available at this https URL.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.09446 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.09446v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.09446 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 250 words
Related coverage
On Scope Classification and Current Knowledge-Editing Benchmarks: A Negative Result, with INLAY as a Gradient-Free Case Study
arXiv · Aug 28, 2026

Brief independent investigation of agents’ behavior, reasoning and collaboration in the OpenAI / Hugging Face hacking incident
METR · Aug 26, 2026
When they can perform a task, AIs are much cheaper than humans
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026

Exploring self-distilled reasoning for supervised fine-tuning with Amazon Nova
AWS · Jul 21, 2026