# Boundary Suppression Asymmetry in Post-trained Assistants: Over-expansion as a Controllability Cost

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27969 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.27969/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 15 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.00190/) (2021)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [LIMA: Less Is More for Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11206/) (2023)
- [Plug and Play Language Models: A Simple Approach to Controlled Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.02164/) (2019)
- [ORPO: Monolithic Preference Optimization without Reference Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07691/) (2024)
- [The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13208/) (2024)
- [GeDi: Generative Discriminator Guided Sequence Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.06367/) (2020)
- [FUDGE: Controlled Text Generation With Future Discriminators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.05218/) (2021)
- [Fine-Tuning Enhances Existing Mechanisms: A Case Study on Entity Tracking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14811/) (2024)
- [A Survey of Controllable Text Generation using Transformer-based Pre-trained Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.05337/) (2022)
- [Long Is More for Alignment: A Simple but Tough-to-Beat Baseline for Instruction Fine-Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04833/) (2024)
- [Following Length Constraints in Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.17744/) (2024)
- [Understanding Forgetting in LLM Supervised Fine-Tuning and Preference Learning -- A Convex Optimization Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.15483/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Post-trained language-model assistants are often optimized to avoid under-answering, encouraging complete, helpful, cautious, and proactive responses. We ask whether this optimization creates asymmetric controllability costs: when users explicitly request narrower answers, which assistant behaviors remain suppressible, and which continue to shape the response? We study this problem as boundary-suppression asymmetry. Prompt-side probes across multiple high-level response dimensions suggest a selective cost, concentrated around `too-much assistant' directions such as over-completion, extra help, and anti-underanswering. Using controlled assistant-policy variants derived from a shared base model, we find that anti-underanswering policies are harder to pull back than the baseline under matched boundary-control evaluations, while minimal-boundary variants generally avoid this anti-side upward shift in the direct boundary-control comparisons. Mechanism-oriented probes point beyond longer default outputs, pure EOS failure, uncertainty compensation, and local continuation bias, while robustness checks preserve the main anti-over-baseline ordering under shared-system and larger-scale settings. The evidence supports a mixed planning/stopping account, where content-budget overshoot and continuation persistence jointly make boundary correction harder. Overall, post-training may create direction-specific controllability costs: some helpful assistant tendencies remain easy to invoke, yet harder to locally suppress.