EthicMind: A Risk-Aware Framework for Ethical-Emotional Alignment in Multi-Turn Dialogue

Empathetic dialogue requires not only recognizing a user's emotional state but also making strategy-aware, context-sensitive decisions throughout response generation. However, the lack of a comprehensive empathy strategy framework, explicit task-aligned multi-stage reasoning, and high-quality strategy-aware data fundamentally limits existing approaches, preventing them from effectively modeling empathetic dialogue as a complex, multi-stage cognitive and decision-making process. To address these challenges, we propose STRIDE-ED, a STRategy-grounded, Interpretable, and DEep reasoning framework that models Empathetic Dialogue through structured, strategy-conditioned reasoning. To support effective learning, we develop a strategy-aware data refinement pipeline integrating LLM-based annotation, multi-model consistency-weighted evaluation, and dynamic sampling to construct high-quality training data aligned with empathetic strategies. Furthermore, we adopt a two-stage training paradigm that combines supervised fine-tuning with multi-objective reinforcement learning to better align model behaviors with target emotions, empathetic strategies, and response formats. Extensive experiments demonstrate that STRIDE-ED generalizes across diverse open-source LLMs and consistently outperforms existing methods on both automatic metrics and human evaluations. Our data and code are publicly available at https://github.com/jicoder-nwpu/STRIDE-ED.

Contemplative traditions have long guided ethical behavior and prosocial interaction, and recent work suggests that contemplative principles (e.g., mindfulness, compassion, non-dual reasoning) may offer a promising paradigm for aligning large language models (LLMs), improving cooperation and reducing ethical violations in LLM outputs. However, as new models, evaluation metrics, and benchmarks emerge rapidly, it remains challenging to systematically assess whether and how contemplative principles enhance LLM alignment across diverse and evolving scenarios, and existing approaches are often ad hoc and fail to generalize. We present a modular, extensible evaluation framework, initially targeted at the mental health domain, that enables seamless integration of new models, metrics, and benchmarks through a reusable pipeline. The framework currently reproduces existing state-of-the-art results and supports systematic cross-evaluation by flexibly mixing and matching models, metrics, and benchmarks, enabling fair comparison and deeper insight. Its plug-and-play prompting module offers a principled pathway for incorporating ethical perspectives such as contemplative principles, allowing domain experts to define alignment criteria without requiring technical expertise. Although initially focused on mental health, the framework is domain-agnostic and extends naturally to areas such as decision-making, moral reasoning, and human-AI collaboration. By bridging computational evaluation with human-centered ethical reasoning, this work lays the groundwork for interdisciplinary research spanning cognitive science, behavioral economics, philosophy, and system design, toward robust, trustworthy, and socially beneficial human-AI ecosystems.

Can Large Language Models (LLMs) discern when their own outputs are misaligned with human ethics? And can they self-correct? We endow an LLM with a conscience step that reviews its own reasoning and outputs, and we extend the training loss with an alignment component using Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to steer the model away from non-ethical outputs. The result is an online technique to align models in a wide range of applications: training, fine-tuning, adversarial prompting, and zero-shot learning. It does not require a weaker or stronger judge, relying instead on a frozen copy of itself. In previous work, the Emergent Misalignment scenario showed a range of emergent unethical behaviors from fine-tuning the model to hack code. Instead, we empirically show how to achieve Emergent Alignment: a single high-level introspective question steers training toward an ethical model under the same code hacking scenario.