Skip to main content
PublishingResearch ArticlePeer reviewedVersion 2 Open access

Refusal Calibration in Instruction-Tuned Language Models

When should a model decline, and how well do current models know?

  1. 1 Lakeshore Centre for Machine Learning
  2. 2 Northgate Institute of Technology

First posted 2 February 2026 · Version 2 9 July 2026

DOI 10.xxxx/ctm.pb.2026.0007 · ID CTM-PB-2026-0007

Download PDF

Cite this record

Haddad, N. & Kovács, H. (2026). Refusal Calibration in Instruction-Tuned Language Models. CONTINUUM Publishing, CTM-PB-2026-0007. doi:10.xxxx/ctm.pb.2026.0007

Peer reviewed

Reviewed openly by 2 independent reviewers. Completed 1 July 2026.

Sample record. This work is fictional demonstration content. Results, people and institutions are placeholders; references in full-text articles are real publications.

Abstract

Instruction-tuned models decline requests for many reasons, but little is known about how well their refusals track the actual risk of a request. We build a labelled set of 6,400 requests spanning benign, borderline and harmful categories and measure calibration of refusal decisions across eight open models. Refusal rates correlate only weakly with annotated risk for borderline requests, and over-refusal is concentrated in a handful of phrasing patterns rather than topics. A light-weight calibration step that uses the model's own confidence reduces over-refusal by 31% at no measurable cost to harmful-request refusal. We release the labelled set and the annotation guidelines.

Keywords refusal · calibration · safety · instruction tuning · over-refusal

Full text

CTM-PB-2026-0007-v2.pdf

PDF · 16 pages · 1.8 MB

Download PDF

Demonstration record: this entry has no attached file. Real deposits provide the full text as a PDF.

Declarations

Author contributions
Author contributions are listed in the PDF.
Funding
Sample record – no funding to declare.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Data and code availability
Sample article. All results, names and affiliations in this demonstration article are synthetic placeholders.

Peer review

Open reports from independent reviewers. See how outcomes are determined.

Status
Peer reviewed
Requested
4 Feb 2026
Completed
1 Jul 2026
Report identity
Signed reports

Reports on version 1

  • Dr. Samuel Achebe

    Lakeshore Centre for Machine Learning · 20 Mar 2026

    Approved with reservations

    Asks a question that matters for deployment. The labelled set is valuable; the annotation process needs more detail.

    Strengths

    • Large, well-balanced labelled set.

    Concerns

    • Annotator selection and disagreement handling are not described.

    Authors' response

    We added an annotation appendix with agreement statistics.

Reports on version 2Current version

  • Dr. Samuel Achebe

    Lakeshore Centre for Machine Learning · 20 Jun 2026

    Approved

    The annotation appendix is thorough. Approved.

    Strengths

    • Clear appendix.

    Concerns

    • None.
  • Prof. Amara Okeke

    Lakeshore Centre for Machine Learning · 26 Jun 2026

    Approved

    Careful measurement and a useful calibration step.

    Strengths

    • Practical calibration method.

    Concerns

    • None that affect the conclusions.

Versions

  1. Version 2 · 9 July 2026Latest

    Revised after review: annotation appendix added.

    10.xxxx/ctm.pb.2026.0007.v2

  2. Version 1 · 2 February 2026

    Posted; peer review requested.

    10.xxxx/ctm.pb.2026.0007.v1

How to cite

Haddad, N. & Kovács, H. (2026). Refusal Calibration in Instruction-Tuned Language Models. CONTINUUM Publishing, CTM-PB-2026-0007. doi:10.xxxx/ctm.pb.2026.0007

Cite this record

Haddad, N. & Kovács, H. (2026). Refusal Calibration in Instruction-Tuned Language Models. CONTINUUM Publishing, CTM-PB-2026-0007. doi:10.xxxx/ctm.pb.2026.0007

© 2026 The authors. Published by AEX CONTINUUM under the CC BY 4.0 licence.