# Learning When Not to Decide: A Framework for Overcoming Factual Presumptuousness in AI Adjudication

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.19895 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.19895/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 16 of its 35 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [SelectiveNet: A Deep Neural Network with an Integrated Reject Option](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.09192/) (2019)
- [Calibration of Pre-trained Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.07892/) (2020)
- [CUAD: An Expert-Annotated NLP Dataset for Legal Contract Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.06268/) (2021)
- [When Does Pretraining Help? Assessing Self-Supervised Learning for Law and the CaseHOLD Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08671/) (2021)
- [Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20362/) (2024)
- [ContractNLI: A Dataset for Document-level Natural Language Inference for Contracts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.01799/) (2021)
- [AbstentionBench: Reasoning LLMs Fail on Unanswerable Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09038/) (2025)
- [A Case for Humans-in-the-Loop: Decisions in the Presence of Erroneous Algorithmic Scores](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.08035/) (2020)
- [CBR-RAG: Case-Based Reasoning for Retrieval Augmented Generation in LLMs for Legal Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04302/) (2024)
- [QuestBench: Can LLMs ask the right question to acquire information in reasoning tasks?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.22674/) (2025)
- [A Dataset for Statutory Reasoning in Tax Law Entailment and Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.05257/) (2020)
- [Selective "Selective Prediction": Reducing Unnecessary Abstention in Vision-Language Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.15610/) (2024)
- [Knowing When to Abstain: Medical LLMs Under Clinical Uncertainty](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.12471/) (2026)
- [Statutory Construction and Interpretation for Artificial Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.01186/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

A well-known limitation of AI systems is presumptuousness: the tendency of AI systems to provide confident answers when information may be lacking. This challenge is particularly acute in legal applications, where a core task for attorneys, judges, and administrators is to determine whether evidence is sufficient to reach a conclusion. We study this problem in the important setting of unemployment insurance adjudication, which has seen rapid integration of AI systems and where the question of additional fact-finding poses the most significant bottleneck for a system that affects millions of applicants annually. First, through a collaboration with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, we secure rare access to official training materials and guidance to design a novel benchmark that systematically varies in information completeness. Second, we evaluate four leading AI platforms and show that standard RAG-based approaches achieve an average of only 15% accuracy when information is insufficient. Third, advanced prompting methods improve accuracy on inconclusive cases but over-correct, withholding decisions even on clear cases. Fourth, we introduce a structured framework requiring explicit identification of missing information before any determination (SPEC, Structured Prompting for Evidence Checklists). SPEC achieves 89% overall accuracy, while appropriately deferring when evidence is insufficient -- demonstrating that presumptuousness in legal AI is systematic but addressable, and that doing so is a necessary step towards systems that reliably support, rather than supplant, human judgment wherever decisions must await sufficient evidence.