Towards a Multidimensional Evaluation Framework for Empathetic Conversational Systems
Open accessAbstract
Empathetic Conversational Systems (ECS) are built to respond empathetically to the user's emotions and sentiments, regardless of the application domain. Current ECS studies evaluation approaches are restricted to offline evaluation experiments primarily for gold standard comparison & benchmarking, and user evaluation studies for collecting human ratings on specific constructs. These methods are inadequate in measuring the actual quality of empathy in conversations. In this paper, we propose a multidimensional empathy evaluation framework with three new methods for measuring empathy at (i) structural level using three empathy-related dimensions, (ii) behavioral level using empathy behavioral types, and (iii) overall level using an empathy lexicon, thereby fortifying the evaluation process. Experiments were conducted with the state-of-the-art ECS models and large language models (LLMs) to show the framework's usefulness.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From The benefits and dangers of anthropomorphic conversational agents (2025) · cites this paper as [142]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The benefits and dangers of anthropomorphic conversational agents
Peter, S., Riemer, K., & West, J. D. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2415898122 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
The Pursuit of Empathy: Evaluating Small Language Models for PTSD Dialogue Support
Suhas, B., Mahajan, Y., Mattioli, D., Sherrill, A. M., Arriaga, R. I., Wiese, C. W., & Abdullah, S. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.15065 · Cited by 10
“Fine-tuning has improved empathetic response generation in LLMs (Tahir, 2024; Raamkumar and Loh, 2024; Yang et al., 2024; Hsu et al., 2023; Ti-wari et al., 2022; Ma and Chang, 2024; Yu and McGuinness, 2024; Li et al., 2024 et al., 2023; Filienko et al., 2024), and tasks like cognitive distortion…”
Appropriateness of Empathy in AI: A Signal-Cost Perspective
Wang, T., Chi-Ching, J., & Lee, H. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Collaborative Advances in Software and Computing (CASCON) · doi:10.1109/cascon66301.2025.00102
“Frameworks such as the Multidimensional Evaluation Framework [2], LLaMA-EMRank [3], and ESHCC [4] have advanced operationalization across structural, behavioral, and perceptual dimensions.”
- Authors
- Raamkumar, A. S., & Loh, S. B.
- Affiliations
- Agency for Science, Technology and Research (SG)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2407.18538
- OpenAlex
- W4401594491
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Emotion and Mood Recognition
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Keywords
- multidimensional evaluation framework, large language models, chatbots
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