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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.14975 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14975/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security.
- Builds on 5 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Feb 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM safety and security / [Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails](https://mlsanity.com/safety/safety-alignment-refusal-and-guardrails/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [OR-Bench: An Over-Refusal Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20947/) (2024)
- [Which Economic Tasks are Performed with AI? Evidence from Millions of Claude Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.04761/) (2025)
- [Enhancing LLM Safety Through a Theoretical Minimax Game Lens](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.05163/) (2025)
- [AI Governance and Accountability: An Analysis of Anthropic's Claude](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01557/) (2024)
- [Cognitive Anthropomorphism of AI: How Humans and Computers Classify Images](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.03024/) (2020)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Understanding Risk and Dependency in AI Chatbot Use from User Discourse](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.09339/) (2026)
- [EmoRSS: Mitigating Emotion-Induced Over-Refusal in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.04998/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.