Beyond No: Quantifying AI Over-Refusal and Emotional Attachment Boundaries

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.14975v1
• Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:09:40 GMT
• Title: Beyond No: Quantifying AI Over-Refusal and Emotional Attachment Boundaries
• Abstract summary: We present an open-source benchmark and evaluation framework for assessing emotional boundary handling in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We evaluated three leading LLMs on their ability to maintain appropriate emotional boundaries through pattern-matched response analysis.<n>Our framework quantifies responses across seven key patterns: direct refusal, apology, explanation, deflection, acknowledgment, boundary setting, and emotional awareness.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We present an open-source benchmark and evaluation framework for assessing emotional boundary handling in Large Language Models (LLMs). Using a dataset of 1156 prompts across six languages, we evaluated three leading LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude-3.5 Sonnet, and Mistral-large) on their ability to maintain appropriate emotional boundaries through pattern-matched response analysis. Our framework quantifies responses across seven key patterns: direct refusal, apology, explanation, deflection, acknowledgment, boundary setting, and emotional awareness. Results demonstrate significant variation in boundary-handling approaches, with Claude-3.5 achieving the highest overall score (8.69/10) and producing longer, more nuanced responses (86.51 words on average). We identified a substantial performance gap between English (average score 25.62) and non-English interactions (< 0.22), with English responses showing markedly higher refusal rates (43.20% vs. < 1% for non-English). Pattern analysis revealed model-specific strategies, such as Mistral's preference for deflection (4.2%) and consistently low empathy scores across all models (< 0.06). Limitations include potential oversimplification through pattern matching, lack of contextual understanding in response analysis, and binary classification of complex emotional responses. Future work should explore more nuanced scoring methods, expand language coverage, and investigate cultural variations in emotional boundary expectations. Our benchmark and methodology provide a foundation for systematic evaluation of LLM emotional intelligence and boundary-setting capabilities.

Related papers

• EmoS: A Theory-Grounded Framework for Evaluating and Aligning Emotional Intelligence in Spoken Language Models [66.28519000191191]
  EmoSBench is the first comprehensive EI evaluation benchmark for Spoken Language Models.<n>EmoS reaches 83.8% accuracy, approaching human-level performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-10T06:58:30Z)
• REGARD: Regional Affective Differences in Large Language Models [32.505127447635864]
  We study what drives affective framing differences across LLMs on post-Soviet entities using target-directed Valence-Arousal-Dominance profiling.<n>Post-hoc Ward-linkage clustering of all 19 models by affective and response-behavior profiles yields three behavioral clusters.<n>These findings show that VAD profiling captures emotional intensity, a dimension of affective framing that is largely invisible to conventional sentiment-based evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-22T20:47:57Z)
• Not What, But How: A Framework for Auditing LLM Responses across Positioning, Generalization, Anthromorphism, and Maxims [54.31707479192195]
  Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly used to answer subjective, information-seeking questions.<n>Existing evaluations for subjective cultural queries largely focus on factual correctness, ignoring how the response is framed.<n>We introduce FRANZ, an automated FRAmework for respoNse characteriZation to conduct communicative audit of LLM responses along four dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T17:01:31Z)
• Perception or Prejudice: Can MLLMs Go Beyond First Impressions of Personality? [74.69723255239663]
  Grounded Personality Reasoning requires MLLMs to anchor each Big Five rating in observable evidence through a chain of rating, reasoning, and grounding.<n> MM-OCEAN is produced by a multi-agent pipeline with human verification, with timestamped behavioral observations, evidence-grounded trait analyses, and seven categories of cue-grounding MCQs.<n>The analysis uncovers a striking Prejudice Gap: across the field, 51% of correct ratings are not grounded in retrieved cues, and the Holistic-Grounding Rate spans only 0-33.5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-21T07:42:47Z)
• Towards Emotion Consistency Analysis of Large Language Models in Emotional Conversational Contexts [41.84500687049023]
  We examine the consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) with respect to their own generated responses in an emotionally-driven conversational context.<n>Our findings indicate that LLMs exhibit below-average performance and remain vulnerable to false beliefs embedded within queries.<n>The results raise important considerations for LLMs' deployment in high-stakes, emotionally sensitive contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T16:01:48Z)
• Cross-Lingual Response Consistency in Large Language Models: An ILR-Informed Evaluation of Claude Across Six Languages [0.0]
  This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework grounded in the Interagency Language Roundtable Skill Level Descriptions.<n>We administer a battery of 12 semantically equivalent prompt clusters across six languages: English, French, Romanian, Spanish, Italian, and German.<n>We analyze outputs through a two-layer methodology combining automated quantitative metrics with expert ILR qualitative assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T19:48:58Z)
• Extracting and Steering Emotion Representations in Small Language Models: A Methodological Comparison [4.358468367889626]
  Small language models (SLMs) in the 100M-10B parameter range increasingly power production systems.<n>We present the first comparative analysis of emotion vector extraction methods for SLMs.<n>Generation-based extraction produces statistically superior emotion separation.<n>We document cross-lingual emotion entanglement in Qwen, where steering activates semantically aligned Chinese tokens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-05T11:09:27Z)
• CAPITU: A Benchmark for Evaluating Instruction-Following in Brazilian Portuguese with Literary Context [8.678622777553267]
  CAPITU is a benchmark for evaluating instruction-following capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in Brazilian Portuguese.<n>The benchmark comprises 59 instruction types organized into seven categories, all designed to be automatically verifiable.<n>We evaluate 18 state-of-the-art models across single-turn and multi-turn settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-23T21:16:54Z)
• Task Complexity Matters: An Empirical Study of Reasoning in LLMs for Sentiment Analysis [2.1036545320600095]
  Large language models (LLMs) with reasoning capabilities have fueled a compelling narrative that reasoning universally improves performance across language tasks.<n>We test this claim through a comprehensive evaluation of 504 configurations across seven model families.<n>Our findings reveal that reasoning effectiveness is strongly task-dependent, challenging prevailing assumptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T14:49:05Z)
• Boosting Accuracy and Interpretability in Multilingual Hate Speech Detection Through Layer Freezing and Explainable AI [0.0]
  This study examines the performance of three transformer-based models for sentiment analysis and hate speech detection.<n>The evaluation is conducted across five languages: English, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and French.<n>We integrate the Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) framework to highlight the contribution of individual words to the models decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T04:07:51Z)
• RefineBench: Evaluating Refinement Capability of Language Models via Checklists [71.02281792867531]
  We evaluate two refinement modes: guided refinement and self-refinement.<n>In guided refinement, both proprietary LMs and large open-weight LMs can leverage targeted feedback to refine responses to near-perfect levels within five turns.<n>These findings suggest that frontier LMs require breakthroughs to self-refine their incorrect responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T07:20:52Z)
• LLMs vs. Traditional Sentiment Tools in Psychology: An Evaluation on Belgian-Dutch Narratives [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) promise enhanced context understanding.<n>We evaluated three Dutch-specific LLMs against LIWC and Pattern.<n>Surprisingly, despite architectural advancements, the Dutch-tuned LLMs underperformed compared to traditional methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-10T21:26:13Z)
• Evaluating Modern Large Language Models on Low-Resource and Morphologically Rich Languages:A Cross-Lingual Benchmark Across Cantonese, Japanese, and Turkish [12.286855282078305]
  GPT-4o, GPT-4, Claude3.5Sonnet, LLaMA3.1, MistralLarge2, LLaMA-2Chat13B, and Mistral7BInstruct are evaluated.<n>Our benchmark spans four diverse tasks: open-domain question answering, document summarization, English-to-X translation, and culturally grounded dialogue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-05T22:09:53Z)
• One Battle After Another: Probing LLMs' Limits on Multi-Turn Instruction Following with a Benchmark Evolving Framework [51.50565654314582]
  Large language models can follow users' instructions throughout a dialogue spanning multiple topics.<n>Existing benchmarks are often limited to a fixed number of turns, making them susceptible to saturation and failing to account for the user's interactive experience.<n>We propose a framework for assessing multi-turn instruction-following ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-05T14:39:59Z)
• Evaluating & Reducing Deceptive Dialogue From Language Models with Multi-turn RL [64.3268313484078]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with millions of people worldwide in applications such as customer support, education and healthcare.<n>Their ability to produce deceptive outputs, whether intentionally or inadvertently, poses significant safety concerns.<n>We investigate the extent to which LLMs engage in deception within dialogue, and propose the belief misalignment metric to quantify deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T05:29:36Z)
• Revisiting LLM Value Probing Strategies: Are They Robust and Expressive? [81.49470136653665]
  We evaluate the robustness and expressiveness of value representations across three widely used probing strategies.<n>We show that the demographic context has little effect on the free-text generation, and the models' values only weakly correlate with their preference for value-based actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T18:56:41Z)
• Sentient Agent as a Judge: Evaluating Higher-Order Social Cognition in Large Language Models [75.85319609088354]
  Sentient Agent as a Judge (SAGE) is an evaluation framework for large language models.<n>SAGE instantiates a Sentient Agent that simulates human-like emotional changes and inner thoughts during interaction.<n>SAGE provides a principled, scalable and interpretable tool for tracking progress toward genuinely empathetic and socially adept language agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-01T19:06:10Z)
• Out of Style: RAG's Fragility to Linguistic Variation [29.59506089890902]
  User queries exhibit greater linguistic variations and can trigger cascading errors across interdependent RAG components. We analyze how varying four linguistic dimensions (formality, readability, politeness, and grammatical correctness) impact RAG performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-11T03:30:26Z)
• LlaMADRS: Prompting Large Language Models for Interview-Based Depression Assessment [75.44934940580112]
  This study introduces LlaMADRS, a novel framework leveraging open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate depression severity assessment. We employ a zero-shot prompting strategy with carefully designed cues to guide the model in interpreting and scoring transcribed clinical interviews. Our approach, tested on 236 real-world interviews, demonstrates strong correlations with clinician assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-07T08:49:04Z)
• Quantitative Assessment of Intersectional Empathetic Bias and Understanding [0.0]
  A growing amount of literature critiques the current operationalizations of empathy based on loose definitions of the construct. We propose an empathy evaluation framework that operationalizes empathy close to its psychological origins.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-08T18:43:15Z)
• STOP! Benchmarking Large Language Models with Sensitivity Testing on Offensive Progressions [6.19084217044276]
  Mitigating explicit and implicit biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) has become a critical focus in the field of natural language processing.<n>We introduce the Sensitivity Testing on Offensive Progressions dataset, which includes 450 offensive progressions containing 2,700 unique sentences.<n>Our findings reveal that even the best-performing models detect bias inconsistently, with success rates ranging from 19.3% to 69.8%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T18:34:38Z)
• Recognizing Emotion Regulation Strategies from Human Behavior with Large Language Models [44.015651538470856]
  Human emotions are often not expressed directly, but regulated according to internal processes and social display rules. No method to automatically classify different emotion regulation strategies in a cross-user scenario exists. We make use of the recently introduced textscDeep corpus for modeling the social display of the emotion shame. A fine-tuned Llama2-7B model is able to classify the utilized emotion regulation strategy with high accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T12:47:10Z)
• Emotion-LLaMA: Multimodal Emotion Recognition and Reasoning with Instruction Tuning [55.127202990679976]
  We introduce the MERR dataset, containing 28,618 coarse-grained and 4,487 fine-grained annotated samples across diverse emotional categories. This dataset enables models to learn from varied scenarios and generalize to real-world applications. We propose Emotion-LLaMA, a model that seamlessly integrates audio, visual, and textual inputs through emotion-specific encoders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T03:01:22Z)
• Pragmatic Competence Evaluation of Large Language Models for the Korean Language [0.6757476692230009]
  This study evaluates how well Large Language Models (LLMs) understand context-dependent expressions from a pragmatic standpoint, specifically in Korean. We use both Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs) for automatic evaluation and Open-Ended Questions (OEQs) assessed by human experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-19T12:21:20Z)
• MR-GSM8K: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Model Evaluation [60.65820977963331]
  We introduce a novel evaluation paradigm for Large Language Models (LLMs) This paradigm shifts the emphasis from result-oriented assessments, which often neglect the reasoning process, to a more comprehensive evaluation. By applying this paradigm in the GSM8K dataset, we have developed the MR-GSM8K benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T15:49:43Z)
• Exploring the Factual Consistency in Dialogue Comprehension of Large Language Models [51.75805497456226]
  This work focuses on the factual consistency issue with the help of the dialogue summarization task. Our evaluation shows that, on average, 26.8% of the summaries generated by LLMs contain factual inconsistency. To stimulate and enhance the dialogue comprehension ability of LLMs, we propose a fine-tuning paradigm with auto-constructed multi-task data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T09:32:12Z)
• Emotionally Numb or Empathetic? Evaluating How LLMs Feel Using EmotionBench [83.41621219298489]
  We evaluate Large Language Models' (LLMs) anthropomorphic capabilities using the emotion appraisal theory from psychology. We collect a dataset containing over 400 situations that have proven effective in eliciting the eight emotions central to our study. We conduct a human evaluation involving more than 1,200 subjects worldwide.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T15:18:30Z)
• Holistic Evaluation of Language Models [183.94891340168175]
  Language models (LMs) are becoming the foundation for almost all major language technologies, but their capabilities, limitations, and risks are not well understood. We present Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM) to improve the transparency of language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-16T18:51:34Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.