Let Them Down Easy! Contextual Effects of LLM Guardrails on User Perceptions and Preferences
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
Current LLMs are trained to refuse potentially harmful input queries regardless of whether users actually had harmful intents, causing a tradeoff between safety and user experience. Through a study of 480 participants evaluating 3,840 query-response pairs, we examine how different refusal strategies affect user perceptions across varying motivations. Our findings reveal that response strategy largely shapes user experience, while actual user motivation has negligible impact. Partial compliance -- providing general information without actionable details -- emerges as the optimal strategy, reducing negative user perceptions by over 50% to flat-out refusals. Complementing this, we analyze response patterns of 9 state-of-the-art LLMs and evaluate how 6 reward models score different refusal strategies, demonstrating that models rarely deploy partial compliance naturally and reward models currently undervalue it. This work demonstrates that effective guardrails require focusing on crafting thoughtful refusals rather than detecting intent, offering a path toward AI safety mechanisms that ensure both safety and sustained user engagement.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 24 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2025.
Builds on
24 of 57 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2025FalseReject: A Resource for Improving Contextual Safety and Mitigating Over-Refusals in LLMs via Structured Reasoning12 May
- 2024SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal20 Jun
- 2023Safe RLHF: Safe Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback19 Oct
Other references · 21
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
- 2023Safety-Tuned LLaMAs: Lessons From Improving the Safety of Large Language Models that Follow Instructionscited by 387
- 2023NeMo Guardrails: A Toolkit for Controllable and Safe LLM Applications with Programmable Railscited by 365
- 2024Skywork-Reward: Bag of Tricks for Reward Modeling in LLMscited by 327
- 2020Recipes for Safety in Open-domain Chatbotscited by 170
- 2023AI Transparency in the Age of LLMs: A Human-Centered Research Roadmapcited by 123
- 2024Collective Constitutional AI: Aligning a Language Model with Public Inputcited by 123
- 2024What Large Language Models Know and What People Think They Knowcited by 110
- 2022ProsocialDialog: A Prosocial Backbone for Conversational Agentscited by 109
- 2024Unpacking DPO and PPO: Disentangling Best Practices for Learning from Preference Feedbackcited by 107
- 2024The Art of Saying No: Contextual Noncompliance in Language Modelscited by 105
- 2024Quantile Regression for Distributional Reward Models in RLHFcited by 60
9 more
- 2021Just Say No: Analyzing the Stance of Neural Dialogue Generation in Offensive Contextscited by 56
- 2023When Do Annotator Demographics Matter? Measuring the Influence of Annotator Demographics with the POPQUORN Datasetcited by 52
- 2021Simulating User Satisfaction for the Evaluation of Task-oriented Dialogue Systemscited by 47
- 2023Is Stack Overflow Obsolete? An Empirical Study of the Characteristics of ChatGPT Answers to Stack Overflow Questionscited by 42
- 2023Learn to Refuse: Making Large Language Models More Controllable and Reliable through Knowledge Scope Limitation and Refusal Mechanismcited by 33
- 2023Understanding Users' Dissatisfaction with ChatGPT Responses: Types, Resolving Tactics, and the Effect of Knowledge Levelcited by 26
- 2022Explanations, Fairness, and Appropriate Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Makingcited by 25
- 2024Rel-A.I.: An Interaction-Centered Approach To Measuring Human-LM Reliancecited by 16
- 2023Using ChatGPT in HCI Research -- A Trioethnographycited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025LLM Content Moderation and User Satisfaction: Evidence from Response Refusals in Chatbot Arena
- 2025Characterizing Selective Refusal Bias in Large Language Models
- 2026You Shouldn't Have Asked: A Pragmatics-Inspired Taxonomy for Evaluating LLM Refusals
- 2026The Refusal--Compliance Tradeoff: A Large-Scale Safety Behavior Audit of Large Language Models
- 2026Do Language Models Know When They'll Refuse? Probing Introspective Awareness of Safety Boundaries
- 2026Separating Prompt Harmfulness from Interaction Safety via Partial Generation
- 2026What Do Safety-Aligned LLMs Learn From Mixed Compliance Demonstrations?
- 2026Safety for Whom? Benchmarking Understanding Beyond Refusal in Egocentric Multimodal Assistants