arXiv preprint ·
When Empathy Misses the Goal: A Benchmark for Goal Displacement in LLM Advice
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Conversational large language models can respond with warmth and reassurance while failing to advance the user's stated goal. We conceptualize this failure as $\textbf{goal displacement}$, the substitution of persona-maintenance content for goal-relevant substance. To measure it, we introduce $\textbf{GDB}$ (Goal Displacement Benchmark), comprising 230 scenarios across nine domains and $4{,}134$ human-scored responses from 18 models. A $2 \times 2$ taxonomy crosses hard constraints with emotional distress, distinguishing failures to confront infeasible goals or combine empathy with practical guidance from reverse displacement, where unsolicited problem-solving replaces requested emotional support. A deletion-test rubric assesses whether substantive help remains after purely supportive sentences are removed. Independent raters achieve weighted $κ= 0.82$ against author scores for displacement severity. Trap displacement ranges from $0.0\%$ to $37.7\%$ and is strongly negatively correlated with Chatbot Arena Elo ($ρ= -0.706$, $n = 15$). Reverse displacement reaches $41.9\%$, including substantial rates in models with negligible trap displacement. A factorial probe supports a distinction from social sycophancy. Human-scored responses in the high-complexity, low-pressure condition exhibit $35.0\%$ sycophancy but $7.5\%$ displacement, with little association between the constructs. Matched OLMo-2 checkpoints show that mixed empathy-with-constraints displacement remains at $52.3\%$ after supervised fine-tuning and falls to $13.8\%$ after direct preference optimization. GDB provides a reproducible diagnostic of whether responses advance the operationalized user goal, supporting model comparison, post-training evaluation, and regression testing. We release the dataset, annotations, and rubric under CC-BY-4.0 and the evaluation code under MIT.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Stable Signer V3: 4D Deformable Primitive Splatting Is All You Need for Sign Language Production
When Better Opportunities Backfire: Service Worker Responses to Parallel AI Deployment in Customer Acquisition
Means-Ends Analysis Helps LLMs Plan in Continuous-State Domains
Safety Offset Learning: When Benign Fine-Tuning Misaligns LLMs
What Can't Jev Decide? Probing the Limits of One-Pass Decision Models
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.