# When Empathy Misses the Goal: A Benchmark for Goal Displacement in LLM Advice

Preprint · Dean Ariel, Guy Laban

- Archive id: arxiv:2610.25522
- Published: 2026-10-18
- arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25522
- Source URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25522
- PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.25522
- Provenance: arxiv

## Abstract

Conversational large language models can respond with warmth and reassurance while failing to advance the user's stated goal. We conceptualize this failure as $\\textbf{goal displacement}$, the substitution of persona-maintenance content for goal-relevant substance. To measure it, we introduce $\\textbf{GDB}$ (Goal Displacement Benchmark), comprising 230 scenarios across nine domains and $4{,}134$ human-scored responses from 18 models. A $2 \\times 2$ taxonomy crosses hard constraints with emotional distress, distinguishing failures to confront infeasible goals or combine empathy with practical guidance from reverse displacement, where unsolicited problem-solving replaces requested emotional support. A deletion-test rubric assesses whether substantive help remains after purely supportive sentences are removed. Independent raters achieve weighted $κ= 0.82$ against author scores for displacement severity. Trap displacement ranges from $0.0\\%$ to $37.7\\%$ and is strongly negatively correlated with Chatbot Arena Elo ($ρ= -0.706$, $n = 15$). Reverse displacement reaches $41.9\\%$, including substantial rates in models with negligible trap displacement. A factorial probe supports a distinction from social sycophancy. Human-scored responses in the high-complexity, low-pressure condition exhibit $35.0\\%$ sycophancy but $7.5\\%$ displacement, with little association between the constructs. Matched OLMo-2 checkpoints show that mixed empathy-with-constraints displacement remains at $52.3\\%$ after supervised fine-tuning and falls to $13.8\\%$ after direct preference optimization. GDB provides a reproducible diagnostic of whether responses advance the operationalized user goal, supporting model comparison, post-training evaluation, and regression testing. We release the dataset, annotations, and rubric under CC-BY-4.0 and the evaluation code under MIT.

_Abstract reproduced under CC0-1.0 (arXiv descriptive metadata)._

---
Space Kitty Archive · https://space-kitty.com · API: https://space-kitty.com/api/v1 · MCP: https://space-kitty.com/mcp · Premium: $0.20/request via x402 (Base Sepolia (testnet)). Metadata: arXiv (CC0), OpenAlex (CC0), Europe PMC (CC BY/CC0 works), ClinicalTrials.gov.