Improving negative rejection ability in language models: A review of fine-tuned LLMs, RAG, and RAFT

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in text understanding and generation but struggle to reject irrelevant, ambiguous, or misleading queries, termed negative rejection, impacting reliability in high-stakes contexts. This paper reviews negative rejection, analyzing three approaches: fine-tuned LLMs, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), and Retrieval-Augmented Fine-Tuning (RAFT). Through a literature review, we assess their rejection accuracy, hallucination rates, computational costs, and domain adaptability. We introduce a four-dimensional framework—architecture, metrics, domain application, and dataset diversity—to organize existing studies and benchmarks for comparative analysis (Cao, 2024). Our findings show fine-tuning boosts specificity but lacks universality, RAG enhances context but suffers from retrieval noise, and RAFT balances rejection and efficiency. We recommend future LLMs embed rejection awareness in retrieval and generation. This work synthesizes current research, offering analytical insights into negative rejection strategies and guiding NLP system development.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences
Published
2025-12-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44443-025-00334-6
Primary Topic
Topic Modeling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Improving negative rejection ability in language models: A review of fine-tuned LLMs, RAG, and RAFT

Baha Ihnaini, Bowen Li, Zhong Zhuoqing, Zhang Hengyu
Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences
Topic Modeling
article

Improving negative rejection ability in language models: A review of fine-tuned LLMs, RAG, and RAFT

Baha Ihnaini, Bowen Li, Zhong Zhuoqing, Zhang Hengyu
article en

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in text understanding and generation but struggle to reject irrelevant, ambiguous, or misleading queries, termed negative rejection, impacting reliability in high-stakes contexts. This paper reviews negative rejection, analyzing three approaches: fine-tuned LLMs, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), and Retrieval-Augmented Fine-Tuning (RAFT). Through a literature review, we assess their rejection accuracy, hallucination rates, computational costs, and domain adaptability. We introduce a four-dimensional framework—architecture, metrics, domain application, and dataset diversity—to organize existing studies and benchmarks for comparative analysis (Cao, 2024). Our findings show fine-tuning boosts specificity but lacks universality, RAG enhances context but suffers from retrieval noise, and RAFT balances rejection and efficiency. We recommend future LLMs embed rejection awareness in retrieval and generation. This work synthesizes current research, offering analytical insights into negative rejection strategies and guiding NLP system development.

Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information SciencesVol. 38(2)
Wenzhou-Kean University (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 79%
Topic Modeling
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.