aiqbench analysis
This research investigates the inherent trade-off in Large Language Models when optimizing for specific behavioral traits, demonstrating that penalizing confrontational responses reliably degrades goal persistence across different model architectures. The study highlights a critical limitation where preference optimization techniques struggle to simultaneously maintain therapeutic objectives and relational sensitivity without significant performance costs on certain base models.
Rolling With Resistance: Preference-Optimized LLM Counselors Can Trade Goal Persistence for Relational Attunement in Motivational Interviewing
arXiv:2607.28814v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In Motivational Interviewing (MI), a client's sustain talk (arguments for the status quo) calls for the counselor to roll with resistance, a move that can fail in two opposite ways: capitulation (abandoning the change agenda to preserve rapport) or confrontation (arguing or directing, overriding the client's autonomy). We introduce a two-axis evaluation of counselor responses, anchored in the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) code, Goal Persistence (GP) and Relational Attunement (RA), yielding a four-quadrant framing in which rolling with resistance is high on both, and we ask whether penalizing one failure through preference optimization teaches rolling with resistance or provokes its opposite. From the expert-annotated AnnoMI corpus we build topic-disjoint Direct Preference Optimization data whose preference sets differ only in which failure is rejected, using on-policy negatives. An automatic judge, validated against AnnoMI's expert labels and rechecked by trained human coders, scores blind pairwise win-rates against each base under a firewall in which disjoint model families generate, label, and judge. Across three aligned instruction models spanning the Qwen and Llama families, penalizing confrontation reliably lowers goal persistence below parity, on every base and in every seed run, a robust cost, whereas the attunement gain is base-dependent, present on two of the three bases but absent on the third. Penalizing capitulation is inert, because these models rarely capitulate on-policy, so the trade is gated by each base's failure profile. A prompt-only control raises attunement without the goal-persistence cost, locating the cost in the optimization rather than in attunement itself.
Abstract:In Motivational Interviewing (MI), a client's sustain talk (arguments for the status quo) calls for the counselor to roll with resistance, a move that can fail in two opposite ways: capitulation (abandoning the change agenda to preserve rapport) or confrontation (arguing or directing, overriding the client's autonomy). We introduce a two-axis evaluation of counselor responses, anchored in the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) code, Goal Persistence (GP) and Relational Attunement (RA), yielding a four-quadrant framing in which rolling with resistance is high on both, and we ask whether penalizing one failure through preference optimization teaches rolling with resistance or provokes its opposite. From the expert-annotated AnnoMI corpus we build topic-disjoint Direct Preference Optimization data whose preference sets differ only in which failure is rejected, using on-policy negatives. An automatic judge, validated against AnnoMI's expert labels and rechecked by trained human coders, scores blind pairwise win-rates against each base under a firewall in which disjoint model families generate, label, and judge. Across three aligned instruction models spanning the Qwen and Llama families, penalizing confrontation reliably lowers goal persistence below parity, on every base and in every seed run, a robust cost, whereas the attunement gain is base-dependent, present on two of the three bases but absent on the third. Penalizing capitulation is inert, because these models rarely capitulate on-policy, so the trade is gated by each base's failure profile. A prompt-only control raises attunement without the goal-persistence cost, locating the cost in the optimization rather than in attunement itself.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2607.28814 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2607.28814v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.28814 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 349 words
