Empathy Is Not the Scapegoat for Declines in Factuality and Reliability

Empathy is central to human connection, yet people often struggle to express it effectively. In blinded evaluations, large language models (LLMs) generate responses that are often judged more empathic than human-written ones. Yet when a response is attributed to AI, recipients feel less heard than when comparable responses are attributed to a human. We built a conversation platform in which participants are asked to offer empathic support to an LLM expressing realistic troubles and conducted a randomized experiment collecting 33,938 messages spanning 2,904 text-based conversations between 968 participants and their LLM conversational partners. We find participants report feeling empathy but systematically fail to express it, but an LLM coaching intervention offering personalized feedback on effective empathic communication significantly boosts it without homogenizing participants' responses. Moreover, we derive a data-driven taxonomy of idiomatic empathic expressions in naturalistic dialogues across personal and workplace trouble scenarios. These results advance the scientific understanding of how empathy is expressed and demonstrate a scalable, AI-based intervention for scaffolding and cultivating it.

Reinforcement learning from verifiable emotion rewards RLVER has produced language models with strong empathetic performance, evaluated on benchmarks that assume cooperative, honest users. Yet real emotional interactions systematically violate this assumption: users gaslight, escalate, and pressure AI systems for unconditional validation, dynamics that cooperative benchmarks cannot surface. We construct the Adversarial Empathy Benchmark AEB and introduce the Emotional Consistency Score ECS to evaluate empathetic robustness under adversarial conditions. AEB comprises six psychologically grounded adversarial trajectory types with discriminative reward structures that penalize formulaic responses; ECS formally disentangles a model's capacity to track user emotional states from its capacity to improve them. In a controlled experiment across eight scenario-matched conditions (think and no-think conditions on 2 RLVER models, and 2 base models (Qwen 1.5B and 7B) with 480 adversarial dialogues), RLVER-PPO-Think substantially outperforms the same-scale untuned baseline (0.963 vs. 0.761, $p<0.001, r=0.688$), with zero dialogue collapses and 47% higher hidden-intention detection. However, ECS remains nearly flat and is not significantly different for RLVER-PPO-Think versus Base-7B-Think ($p=0.650$): RL training improves emotional responsiveness without measurable gains in observable state tracking. We interpret the ECS--FS (Final Score) gap as a behavioral/legibility dissociation inside this simulator family, not as evidence about internal understanding or clinical readiness.

Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks under five prompt variants each, measuring accuracy, token-probability calibration, verbal-confidence calibration, verbal parse rate, and prompt-perturbation spread for every (model x dataset x variant) cell. We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion. Switching Expected Calibration Error (ECE) token from a raw to a label-set-normalised definition changes per-cell calibration by a mean absolute 0.149. More strikingly, pairing a chain-of-thought prompt with a first-character evaluator on ARC-Challenge reduces apparent accuracy by 72-88% across all five primary models; two independent repair procedures recover 93.8% and 102.7% of the lost performance, indicating an evaluator-side rather than model-side failure. Second, confidence signals are fragile. On MMLU-Pro, every primary model verbally reports confidence substantially above both its accuracy and its token-probability confidence on the same rows, and verbal parse rate can collapse for a single model on a single prompt variant. Third, prompt robustness does not track parameter count reliably. Across 10 instruct models, the correlation between model size and prompt-perturbation spread ranges from -0.244 to 0.474 across benchmarks. Taken together, these results show that reliability conclusions for small language models depend not only on the model being evaluated, but also on the evaluation pipeline used to measure it. We argue that calibration definitions, evaluator logic, verbal parseability, and prompt robustness should be reported explicitly when making reliability claims.