Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly trained to abstain from answering questions they are unsure about. However, this ability is often misapplied: in real-world applications, user prompts sometimes contain elements of uncertainty, which lead LLMs to abstain even on problems they are capable of solving. We argue that LLM abstention is not only an expression of genuine uncertainty; it can also be an artifact largely shaped by prompts. We name this phenomenon *Abstention Inflation*. We add "Unknown" as an extra option for LLMs to choose from; experiments show serious accuracy drops on True/False Questions (TFQs). Replacing "Unknown" with an unrelated random word produces a similar effect. We argue that LLMs are trained to imitate the surface pattern of abstention, rather than to express genuine uncertainty. Based on ten experimental settings, we support four claims that form a progressive argument: **(C1)** *Abstention Inflation* can be triggered by the presence of an extra option, not by genuine uncertainty; **(C2)** it makes the models deny they can answer, even when they can; **(C3)** it is a later-layer output override, as the reasoning traces and mid-layer representations preserve correct answers; **(C4)** it is not stochastic noise: it results from various factors, emerges through instruction tuning, is boosted by problems' higher difficulty, and can be mitigated at larger model sizes.

翻译：暂无翻译