PreprintCited by 1Ethics and Social Impacts of AITopic ModelingSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The DOI matches its DataCite record; its reference list is not available.

GIEBench: Towards Holistic Evaluation of Group Identity-based Empathy for Large Language Models

Open access

Abstract

As large language models (LLMs) continue to develop and gain widespread application, the ability of LLMs to exhibit empathy towards diverse group identities and understand their perspectives is increasingly recognized as critical. Most existing benchmarks for empathy evaluation of LLMs focus primarily on universal human emotions, such as sadness and pain, often overlooking the context of individuals' group identities. To address this gap, we introduce GIEBench, a comprehensive benchmark that includes 11 identity dimensions, covering 97 group identities with a total of 999 single-choice questions related to specific group identities. GIEBench is designed to evaluate the empathy of LLMs when presented with specific group identities such as gender, age, occupation, and race, emphasizing their ability to respond from the standpoint of the identified group. This supports the ongoing development of empathetic LLM applications tailored to users with different identities. Our evaluation of 23 LLMs revealed that while these LLMs understand different identity standpoints, they fail to consistently exhibit equal empathy across these identities without explicit instructions to adopt those perspectives. This highlights the need for improved alignment of LLMs with diverse values to better accommodate the multifaceted nature of human identities. Our datasets are available at https://github.com/GIEBench/GIEBench.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2406.14903

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Exceptions to the lack of dedicated tests are tests aiming to measure empathy, such as GIEBench.

    “Exceptions are tests aiming to measure empathy (142), such as GIEBench (143).”

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 1

Metadata

Authors
Wang, L., Jin, Y., Shen, T., Zheng, T., Du, X., Zhang, C., Huang, W., Liu, J., Wang, S., Zhang, G., Xiang, L., & He, Z.
Affiliations
  • Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (CN)
  • Tianjin University (CN)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4400021957
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
group identity, empathy, large language models, benchmark, identity dimensions, perspective taking, value alignment, social identity, LLM evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review