LLM Content Moderation and User Satisfaction: Evidence from Response Refusals in Chatbot Arena

Fuente: arXiv
Enregistré dans:
Détails bibliographiques
Auteur principal: Pasch, Stefan
Format: Preprint
Publié: 2025
Sujets:
Accès en ligne:
Tags: Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
_version_ 1866910946682732544
author Pasch, Stefan
author_facet Pasch, Stefan
contents LLM safety and ethical alignment are widely discussed, but the impact of content moderation on user satisfaction remains underexplored. In particular, little is known about how users respond when models refuse to answer a prompt-one of the primary mechanisms used to enforce ethical boundaries in LLMs. We address this gap by analyzing nearly 50,000 model comparisons from Chatbot Arena, a platform where users indicate their preferred LLM response in pairwise matchups, providing a large-scale setting for studying real-world user preferences. Using a novel RoBERTa-based refusal classifier fine-tuned on a hand-labeled dataset, we distinguish between refusals due to ethical concerns and technical limitations. Our results reveal a substantial refusal penalty: ethical refusals yield significantly lower win rates than both technical refusals and standard responses, indicating that users are especially dissatisfied when models decline a task for ethical reasons. However, this penalty is not uniform. Refusals receive more favorable evaluations when the underlying prompt is highly sensitive (e.g., involving illegal content), and when the refusal is phrased in a detailed and contextually aligned manner. These findings underscore a core tension in LLM design: safety-aligned behaviors may conflict with user expectations, calling for more adaptive moderation strategies that account for context and presentation.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2501_03266
institution arXiv
publishDate 2025
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle LLM Content Moderation and User Satisfaction: Evidence from Response Refusals in Chatbot Arena
Pasch, Stefan
Computation and Language
Artificial Intelligence
Computers and Society
Human-Computer Interaction
Social and Information Networks
LLM safety and ethical alignment are widely discussed, but the impact of content moderation on user satisfaction remains underexplored. In particular, little is known about how users respond when models refuse to answer a prompt-one of the primary mechanisms used to enforce ethical boundaries in LLMs. We address this gap by analyzing nearly 50,000 model comparisons from Chatbot Arena, a platform where users indicate their preferred LLM response in pairwise matchups, providing a large-scale setting for studying real-world user preferences. Using a novel RoBERTa-based refusal classifier fine-tuned on a hand-labeled dataset, we distinguish between refusals due to ethical concerns and technical limitations. Our results reveal a substantial refusal penalty: ethical refusals yield significantly lower win rates than both technical refusals and standard responses, indicating that users are especially dissatisfied when models decline a task for ethical reasons. However, this penalty is not uniform. Refusals receive more favorable evaluations when the underlying prompt is highly sensitive (e.g., involving illegal content), and when the refusal is phrased in a detailed and contextually aligned manner. These findings underscore a core tension in LLM design: safety-aligned behaviors may conflict with user expectations, calling for more adaptive moderation strategies that account for context and presentation.
title LLM Content Moderation and User Satisfaction: Evidence from Response Refusals in Chatbot Arena
topic Computation and Language
Artificial Intelligence
Computers and Society
Human-Computer Interaction
Social and Information Networks
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.03266