Anji Zhou

Lu Chen, Xiaoran Xue, Rongqi Ding et al.

As conversational AI becomes capable of sustained, affectively responsive interaction, users may form bonds beyond instrumental use. Existing measures often adapt interpersonal frameworks or focus on specific relational outcomes, leaving limited tools for assessing human-AI affective bonding on its own terms. Across two studies, we developed and validated the Human-AI Affective Bonding Inventory (HAABI). Study 1 used thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 52 emotionally engaged conversational AI users to identify cognitive, emotional, and behavioral features of bonding. Study 2 translated these insights into a self-report inventory and validated it among 673 Chinese conversational AI users. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a 20-item, four-factor structure: emotional realism, separation anxiety, emotional investment, and romantic intimacy. The HAABI showed good reliability, construct validity, and known-groups validity. The scale therefore provides a neutral, user-centered tool for studying how affective bonds with conversational AI are formed, experienced, and related to users' psychological outcomes.

Minghao Lv, Lu Chen, Enchang Zhang et al.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into emotionally sensitive domains, the structural integrity of their emotional intelligence (EI) becomes a critical frontier for safety and alignment. Current benchmarks often conflate superficial politeness with deep affective reasoning, failing to distinguish between perceptual accuracy and interactive efficacy. Here, we introduce FACET (Functional Affective Competence and Empathy Test), a psychometrically grounded framework comprising 480 expert-crafted items. Unlike previous metrics, FACET is theoretically anchored in the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso four-branch ability model, operationalizing EI through perception, facilitation, understanding, and management of emotions. Through an evaluation of nine frontier models (including GPT-5, Claude-Sonnet-4), we demonstrate that emotional intelligence is not a monolithic capability but is fragmented across cognitive and interactive dimensions. While frontier models demonstrate robust proficiency in objective emotion recognition and social reasoning, this does not consistently translate to interactive success. We categorize these discrepancies into three distinct performance profiles: cognitive-dominant, interactive-dominant, and context-dependent. These typologies indicate that emotional skills do not scale uniformly with general intelligence or model size; rather, they are shaped by specific alignment paradigms. Notably, we identify hidden emotion recognition as a universal performance bottleneck across all architectures. Our results suggest that current RLHF processes may optimize for "stochastic empathy", a statistical mimicry of emotional syntax, at the expense of integrated affective reasoning. These findings challenge the assumption of linear emotional scaling and provide a rigorous roadmap for developing socially aware agents capable of genuine clinical resonance.

Jiaxin Liu, Peiyi Tu, Wenyu Chen et al.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in cognitive and reasoning benchmarks, they exhibit a persistent deficit in anthropomorphic intelligence-the capacity to navigate complex social, emotional, and ethical nuances. This gap is particularly acute in the Chinese linguistic and cultural context, where a lack of specialized evaluation frameworks and high-quality socio-emotional data impedes progress. To address these limitations, we present HeartBench, a framework designed to evaluate the integrated emotional, cultural, and ethical dimensions of Chinese LLMs. Grounded in authentic psychological counseling scenarios and developed in collaboration with clinical experts, the benchmark is structured around a theory-driven taxonomy comprising five primary dimensions and 15 secondary capabilities. We implement a case-specific, rubric-based methodology that translates abstract human-like traits into granular, measurable criteria through a ``reasoning-before-scoring'' evaluation protocol. Our assessment of 13 state-of-the-art LLMs indicates a substantial performance ceiling: even leading models achieve only 60% of the expert-defined ideal score. Furthermore, analysis using a difficulty-stratified ``Hard Set'' reveals a significant performance decay in scenarios involving subtle emotional subtexts and complex ethical trade-offs. HeartBench establishes a standardized metric for anthropomorphic AI evaluation and provides a methodological blueprint for constructing high-quality, human-aligned training data.