Human Feedback Types
provisional (inferred)None explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate overly cautious and vague responses on sensitive topics, sacrificing helpfulness for safety."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
FINEST: Improving LLM Responses to Sensitive Topics Through Fine-Grained Evaluation
Juhyun Oh, Nayeon Lee, Chani Jung, Jiho Jin +4 more
Published
Mar 4, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Provisional
Usefulness score
Unavailable
Extraction confidence
0% (Provisional)
Derived from abstract and metadata only.
Signals refreshed
Mar 4, 2026
Should you rely on this paper?
Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.
This page is a lightweight research summary built from the abstract and metadata while deeper extraction catches up.
Abstract-only analysis, low confidence
All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.
- This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.
What to verify
Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.
Main weakness
This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.
Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Weak or implicit
Validate from full paper
Usefulness for eval research
Unavailable
Provisional (processing)
Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate overly cautious and vague responses on sensitive topics, sacrificing helpfulness for safety. Existing evaluation frameworks lack systematic methods to identify and address specific weaknesses in responses to sensitive topics, making it difficult to improve both safety and helpfulness simultaneously. To address this, we introduce FINEST, a FINE-grained response evaluation taxonomy for Sensitive Topics, which breaks down helpfulness and harmlessness into errors across three main categories: Content, Logic, and Appropriateness. Experiments on a Korean-sensitive question dataset demonstrate that our score- and error-based improvement pipeline, guided by FINEST, significantly improves the model responses across all three categories, outperforming refinement without guidance. Notably, score-based improvement -- providing category-specific scores and justifications -- yields the most significant gains, reducing the error sentence ratio for Appropriateness by up to 33.09%. This work lays the foundation for a more explainable and comprehensive evaluation and improvement of LLM responses to sensitive questions.
What we could verify
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
Evaluation Modes
provisional (inferred)None explicit
Validate eval design from full paper text.
"Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate overly cautious and vague responses on sensitive topics, sacrificing helpfulness for safety."
Quality Controls
provisional (inferred)Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate overly cautious and vague responses on sensitive topics, sacrificing helpfulness for safety."
Benchmarks / Datasets
provisional (inferred)Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate overly cautious and vague responses on sensitive topics, sacrificing helpfulness for safety."
Reported Metrics
provisional (inferred)Not extracted
No metric anchors detected.
"Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate overly cautious and vague responses on sensitive topics, sacrificing helpfulness for safety."
Rater Population
provisional (inferred)Unknown
Rater source not explicitly reported.
"Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate overly cautious and vague responses on sensitive topics, sacrificing helpfulness for safety."
Human feedback details
This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.
- Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
- Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
- Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.
Evaluation details
Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.
- Potential evaluation modes: No explicit eval keywords detected.
- Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
- Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).
Research brief
Metadata summary
Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate overly cautious and vague responses on sensitive topics, sacrificing helpfulness for safety.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Key takeaways
- Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate overly cautious and vague responses on sensitive topics, sacrificing helpfulness for safety.
- Existing evaluation frameworks lack systematic methods to identify and address specific weaknesses in responses to sensitive topics, making it difficult to improve both safety and helpfulness simultaneously.
- To address this, we introduce FINEST, a FINE-grained response evaluation taxonomy for Sensitive Topics, which breaks down helpfulness and harmlessness into errors across three main categories: Content, Logic, and Appropriateness.
Researcher actions
- Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
- Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
- Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.
Caveats
- Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
- Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.