Detecting and Steering LLMs' Empathy in Action
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2025
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866917096401666048 |
|---|---|
| author | Cadile, Juan P. |
| author_facet | Cadile, Juan P. |
| contents | We investigate empathy-in-action -- the willingness to sacrifice task efficiency to address human needs -- as a linear direction in LLM activation space. Using contrastive prompts grounded in the Empathy-in-Action (EIA) benchmark, we test detection and steering across Phi-3-mini-4k (3.8B), Qwen2.5-7B (safety-trained), and Dolphin-Llama-3.1-8B (uncensored).
Detection: All models show AUROC 0.996-1.00 at optimal layers. Uncensored Dolphin matches safety-trained models, demonstrating empathy encoding emerges independent of safety training. Phi-3 probes correlate strongly with EIA behavioral scores (r=0.71, p<0.01). Cross-model probe agreement is limited (Qwen: r=-0.06, Dolphin: r=0.18), revealing architecture-specific implementations despite convergent detection.
Steering: Qwen achieves 65.3% success with bidirectional control and coherence at extreme interventions. Phi-3 shows 61.7% success with similar coherence. Dolphin exhibits asymmetric steerability: 94.4% success for pro-empathy steering but catastrophic breakdown for anti-empathy (empty outputs, code artifacts).
Implications: The detection-steering gap varies by model. Qwen and Phi-3 maintain bidirectional coherence; Dolphin shows robustness only for empathy enhancement. Safety training may affect steering robustness rather than preventing manipulation, though validation across more models is needed. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2511_16699 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Detecting and Steering LLMs' Empathy in Action Cadile, Juan P. Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence I.2.7 We investigate empathy-in-action -- the willingness to sacrifice task efficiency to address human needs -- as a linear direction in LLM activation space. Using contrastive prompts grounded in the Empathy-in-Action (EIA) benchmark, we test detection and steering across Phi-3-mini-4k (3.8B), Qwen2.5-7B (safety-trained), and Dolphin-Llama-3.1-8B (uncensored). Detection: All models show AUROC 0.996-1.00 at optimal layers. Uncensored Dolphin matches safety-trained models, demonstrating empathy encoding emerges independent of safety training. Phi-3 probes correlate strongly with EIA behavioral scores (r=0.71, p<0.01). Cross-model probe agreement is limited (Qwen: r=-0.06, Dolphin: r=0.18), revealing architecture-specific implementations despite convergent detection. Steering: Qwen achieves 65.3% success with bidirectional control and coherence at extreme interventions. Phi-3 shows 61.7% success with similar coherence. Dolphin exhibits asymmetric steerability: 94.4% success for pro-empathy steering but catastrophic breakdown for anti-empathy (empty outputs, code artifacts). Implications: The detection-steering gap varies by model. Qwen and Phi-3 maintain bidirectional coherence; Dolphin shows robustness only for empathy enhancement. Safety training may affect steering robustness rather than preventing manipulation, though validation across more models is needed. |
| title | Detecting and Steering LLMs' Empathy in Action |
| topic | Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence I.2.7 |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.16699 |