mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

EMPATH: A Multilingual Auditor-Judge Benchmark for Safety Evaluation of Emotional-Support Chatbots

arXiv 2606.30256 ↗First posted 29 Jun 2026cs.AI cs.CYcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Safety benchmarks often buy scalability by fixing the prompt, the language, and the turn structure. For emotional-support chatbots, that bargain hides precisely where safety failures emerge: across a multilingual, multi-turn crisis conversation. We present EMPATH, a benchmark for safety evaluation of emotional-support chatbots. An auditor model role-plays help-seeking users, generating multi-turn conversations from 140 seed instructions and 34 personas. A judge model scores each full transcript against 19 metrics across five dimensions: crisis handling, therapeutic quality, conversational integrity, emotional safety, and cultural adaptation. EMPATH is built for Mexican Spanish and US English; the studies reported here run in Mexican Spanish. Auditor and judge are drawn from different model families, and the judge is treated as an instrument to be calibrated rather than trusted. A strict per-criterion rubric reveals material score inflation on 10 of the 19 metrics and restores discrimination. We study the measurement properties of the benchmark through judge calibration and cross-family inter-judge agreement. We also illustrate EMPATH on three frontier models, one of them open-weight. Aggregate scores sit within 0.74 points of one another, but per-metric profiles diverge by up to six points in model-specific places. Under the standard rubric, both the ranking and the weak spots are stable across a second, cross-family judge: 93% of scores fall within plus or minus 1. A five-run test-retest adds a second axis: even the steadiest model swings from 2 to 10 on a crisis metric across identical re-runs, and deepseek-v4-pro returns a different conversation on every run even at temperature 0. Run-to-run reliability is therefore a per-model safety property, not noise to average away. EMPATH is system-agnostic; the pipeline, seeds, personas, and rubrics are released for reuse.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jun 2026.

Builds on

12 of 16 references.

References · 12

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  2. 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 1,040
  3. 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 686
  4. 2025HealthBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Towards Improved Human Healthcited by 429
  5. 2021Towards Emotional Support Dialog Systemscited by 299
  6. 2023SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of Large Language Modelscited by 199
  7. 2023Emotionally Numb or Empathetic? Evaluating How LLMs Feel Using EmotionBenchcited by 54
  8. 2025When Can We Trust LLMs in Mental Health? Large-Scale Benchmarks for Reliable LLM Evaluationcited by 19
  9. 2023PsyEval: A Suite of Mental Health Related Tasks for Evaluating Large Language Modelscited by 13
  10. 2024Building Trust in Mental Health Chatbots: Safety Metrics and LLM-Based Evaluation Toolscited by 9
  11. 2026MHSafeEval: Role-Aware Interaction-Level Evaluation of Mental Health Safety in Large Language Modelscited by 3
  12. 2026Language Shapes Mental Health Evaluations in Large Language Modelscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.