Where do LLMs Fall Short in CBT-Guided Affective Reasoning?

Cognitive distortion amplifies negative emotions and contributes to mental health disorders. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is an effective way to address cognitive distortions, but its large-scale application is limited by the shortage of professional therapists. Although large language models (LLMs) have recently been explored for mental health applications, existing methods still suffer from limited domain specificity, overly flattering responses, and the absence of well-defined annotations for cognitive distortions. This paper proposes Cognivia, an evidence-based artificial intelligence therapist that integrates automatic cognitive distortion identification and rational response generation. Our framework is built on authoritative CBT texts widely regarded as core paradigms and standard references. It is further augmented with mental health question-answer (Q and A) data, and employs multi-stage prompting and structured generation strategies under the supervision of behavioral science experts. Then we fine-tune a lightweight LLM on this augmented CBT dataset to obtain Cognivia. In addition, we propose the first hierarchical quality evaluation framework for assessing LLM-generated rational responses, developed through collaboration between AI researchers and behavioral science experts. Cognivia is evaluated using lexical metrics, LLM-based Judges with two complementary criteria, and human evaluation by 10 behavioral science experts. It consistently outperforms the baseline methods in cognitive distortion recognition and rational response generation, demonstrating its effectiveness. Our code is available at https://github.com/SNOWTEAM2023/Cognivia.

Recent incidents involving LLMs used for mental-health support reveal a critical evaluation gap: surface-level safety scores do not capture how models behave across realistic, emotionally sensitive interactions over time. Existing benchmarks measure knowledge, safety, or static response quality, but miss whether LLM interactions help users keep reflecting, coping, and making decisions themselves. We formalize this missing dimension as COGNITIVE ATROPHY, a process-level behavioural measure in AI-mediated mental-health support distinct from safety and helpfulness. To measure it, we introduce COGNITIVE ATROPHY BENCH, a clinically grounded benchmark built from 1,576 fully human-generated counseling conversations, 15,680 turns, and 42,230 responses from five LLMs. Three clinical and neuropsychology experts developed a 20-attribute schema spanning user context, response behaviour, and global risk flags; six trained clinical reviewers applied it with span-grounded evidence, producing 5,324 reviewer judgments. We further introduce the User-Input Risk Index (UIRI), the Cognitive Atrophy Risk Index (ARI), and trajectory summaries. Across five LLMs, models show a consistent moderate-to-high level of atrophy-aligned behaviour across single and multi-turn settings. While models generally respond to overt safety cues, they adapt less reliably when users seek solutions or decisions. The dominant recurring patterns are directive advice, problem-solving, recommendation responses, topic shifts, and forms of validation that may reinforce dependence rather than reflection. Our work makes COGNITIVE ATROPHY measurable and provides a foundation for auditing model behaviour in sensitive LLM conversations.

Emotion understanding is a core capability for LLMs to interact effectively with humans, yet existing evaluation paradigms rely on discrete emotion label prediction and fail to capture the cognitive processes underlying emotion generation. Grounded in appraisal theory, we introduce CAREBench, the first benchmark with complete inferential chain annotations from both first- and third-person perspectives on real-world narratives, spanning appraisal reasoning, appraisal ratings, and multi-label emotion annotation. We propose a process-level evaluation framework and conduct systematic experiments across six LLMs organized around four research questions. We find that stronger models match or surpass human observers on certain tasks, yet fall short on appraisal reasoning and positive emotion recognition; performance across chain steps and sensitivity to appraisal interventions exhibit dissociations across models; and current models have not internalized the mechanisms needed to capture human subjective heterogeneity. These findings suggest that downstream emotion prediction metrics may overestimate LLMs' true emotion understanding, and CAREBench provides a foundation for more diagnostically informative evaluation of LLMs' affective cognitive capabilities.