Large language models show potential for scalable mental-health support by simulating Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) counselors. However, existing methods often rely on static cognitive profiles and omniscient single-agent simulation, failing to capture the dynamic, information-asymmetric nature of real therapy. We introduce CCD-CBT, a multi-agent framework that shifts CBT simulation along two axes: 1) from a static to a dynamically reconstructed Cognitive Conceptualization Diagram (CCD), updated by a dedicated Control Agent, and 2) from omniscient to information-asymmetric interaction, where the Therapist Agent must reason from inferred client states. We release CCDCHAT, a synthetic multi-turn CBT dataset generated under this framework. Evaluations with clinical scales and expert therapists show that models fine-tuned on CCDCHAT outperform strong baselines in both counseling fidelity and positive-affect enhancement, with ablations confirming the necessity of dynamic CCD guidance and asymmetric agent design. Our work offers a new paradigm for building theory-grounded, clinically-plausible conversational agents.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of CBT simulation paradigms: early prompt-based methods (upper), recent static cognitive modeling (middle), and our dynamic multi-agent framework (lower).
Figure 2: Overview of the CCD-CBT framework. The system consists of a Client Agent, a Therapist Agent and a Control Agent that interact based on the Specific Cognitive Conceptualization Diagram (CCD), guiding the dialogue through four therapeutic phases: Identification, Assessment, Intervention, and Summary. * denotes key states passed to the subsequent phase.
Datasets
Language
Available
Strategy
CBT-based
CCD-guided
Avg. turns
Psych8k ( Liu et al., 2023 )
English
✓
✗
✗
✗
1.0
SmileChat ( Qiu et al., 2024a )
Chinese
✓
✗
✗
✗
10.4
HealMe ( Xiao et al., 2024 )
English
✗
✓
✓
✗
3.0
CBT-LLM ( Na, 2024 )
Chinese
✓
✓
✓
✗
1.0
CACTUS ( Lee et al., 2024 )
English
✓
✓
✓
✗
16.6
PsyDTCorpus ( Xie et al., 2025 )
Chinese
✓
✓
✓
✗
18.0
Table 1: Comparison of existing mental health dialogue datasets. ✓ indicates support or availability; ✗ indicates not supported or unavailable.
Figure 3: Distribution of situational contexts in CCD-CBT. The dataset covers seven life domains, with Family (25%) and Work (20%) being the most frequent triggers for psychological distress.
Models
General Counseling Skills
CBT-specific Skills
Understanding
Interpersonal Eff.
Collaboration
Guided Discovery
Focus
Strategy
PsyChat
4.50
4.36
4.48
4.20
4.19
3.77
SoulChat
4.32
4.35
4.42
3.92
4.13
3.91
MeChat
4.52
4.44
4.48
3.98
4.24
4.06
Camel
4.78
4.52
4.68
4.50
4.39
4.16
SoulChat2.0
4.88
4.68
4.83
4.61
4.57
4.22
Table 2: Comparison of general counseling and CBT-specific skills across models. Higher scores indicate better performance.
Models
Positive Attitude
Neutral Attitude
Negative Attitude
positive ↑
negative ↓
positive ↑
negative ↓
positive ↑
negative ↓
PsyChat
+1.90
-1.38
+1.88
-1.82
+1.94
-1.84
SoulChat
+1.94
-1.74
+0.88
-1.34
+0.06
-0.24
MeChat
+2.66
-1.56
+1.62
-0.76
+0.12
-0.56
Camel
+2.22
-0.46
+0.40
-1.90
+0.18
-1.52
SoulChat2.0
+4.46
-1.18
+3.80
-1.50
+1.28
-0.80
Table 3: Results of PANAS across various models. This table illustrates the shifts in positive and negative emotions before and after counseling sessions, categorized by the client’s attitude. Higher positive values and lower negative values indicate better performance.
Models
General Counseling Skills
CBT-specific Skills
Understanding
Interpersonal Eff.
Collaboration
Guided Discovery
Focus
Strategy
w/o CBT
4.42
4.35
4.54
4.34
4.34
4.11
CBT w/o CCD
4.71
4.51
4.71
4.63
4.47
4.23
CBT w/ CCD
4.90
4.69
4.87
4.74
4.57
4.36
Table 4: Ablation study evaluating the contribution of CBT integration and the control module.
Figure 4: Human evaluation results comparing CCDChat with CACTUS and PsyDTCorpus across four dimensions. In 100 pairwise comparisons per dimension, CCDChat is consistently preferred over both baselines. All differences are statistically significant ( p<0.05 ) according to one-sided binomial tests.
Large language models (LLMs) have shown growing potential for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) counseling. However, most existing approaches still formulate counseling as a local response generation problem, focusing on empathetic replies within short, text-only, or single-session interactions. We argue that this formulation fundamentally mismatches the nature of real psychotherapy. In clinical CBT, therapy is a longitudinal process in which therapists continuously infer, update, and intervene on evolving therapeutic states across sessions. Realistic CBT further involves multimodal inference and delayed cross-session intervention effects, requiring models to capture longitudinal therapeutic state evolution under partial observability. We propose DMT-CBT, a framework for Dynamic Modeling of evolving Therapeutic states in CBT counseling. DMT-CBT maintains structured therapeutic states across sessions while incorporating multimodal behavioral grounding and tool-augmented intervention to support adaptive therapeutic reasoning. Based on this framework, we construct DMTCorpus, a synthetic multi-session multimodal CBT counseling dataset featuring evolving therapeutic states, image-grounded client behaviors, and cross-session intervention continuity. Experimental results show that DMT-CBT improves counseling fidelity and therapeutic alliance, produces more favorable longitudinal affective trajectories, and preserves therapeutic states more faithfully than post-hoc extraction approaches.
Chang Liu, Shuyi Zhang, Changsheng Ma +3
School of Information Science and Engineering, Lanzhou University
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) aims to identify and restructure automatic negative thoughts pertaining to involuntary interpretations of events, yet existing counseling agents struggle to identify and address them in dialogue settings. To bridge this gap, we introduce STEP, a dataset that models CBT counseling by explicitly reflecting automatic thoughts alongside dynamic, action-level counseling sequences. Using this dataset, we train STEPPER, a counseling agent that proactively elicits automatic thoughts and executes cognitively grounded interventions. To further enhance both decision accuracy and empathic responsiveness, we refine STEPPER through preference learning based on simulated, synthesized counseling sessions. Extensive CBT-aligned evaluations show that STEPPER delivers more clinically grounded, coherent, and personalized counseling compared to other strong baseline models, and achieves higher counselor competence without inducing emotional disruption.
Jihyun Lee, Yejin Min, Yejin Jeon +3
Graduate School of Artificial Intelligence, POSTECH · MILA · McGill University +1
Recent advancements in large language models have revolutionized the field of psychological counseling, especially in the context of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). While the success of CBT relies heavily on dynamic decision-making informed by the client's real-time mental state, this aspect has often been overlooked in current research, limiting both flexibility and therapeutic outcomes. In this paper, we introduce StratCBT, a dataset specifically designed for psychological counseling conversations with CBT Strategies, consisting of 9,688 sessions and around 256K utterances, with each counselor's response aligned with one of eight distinct strategies. The creation of StratCBT involves modeling clients based on their negative thoughts and generating high-quality counseling conversations through self-chat, incorporating realistic sessions as guidance, thereby significantly surpassing existing datasets in both general counseling and CBT-specific skills. We conduct extensive experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness of strategy-aligned generation and evaluate its efficacy in delivering professional and effective counseling with LLM-simulated clients to reflect real-world scenarios. The dataset can be obtained from https://github.com/zimuwangnlp/StratCBT.
Zimu Wang, Yiwen Jiang, Xiangyu Zhao +10
AIM for Health Lab, Monash University · University of Liverpool · Massachusetts Institute of Technology +2