MOSAIC: A Cognitively Motivated Multi-Agent Framework for Interpretable and Training-Free Empathetic Dialogue

Empathetic dialogue systems built upon large language models overwhelmingly adopt a monolithic inference paradigm that processes emotion perception, causal reasoning, memory retrieval, and response planning within a single forward pass without architecturally enforced intermediate representations, forfeiting intermediate-state transparency and long-horizon personalization. Drawing on neuroscientific and cognitive–psychological evidence that human empathy is functionally dissociable, we present MOSAIC (Multi-agent Orchestration with Structured Affective memory for Interpretable empathiC dialogue), a training-free framework that operationalizes empathetic dialogue as a four-stage cognitive pipeline: affective perception, causal appraisal, episodic memory retrieval, and response synthesis. Three innovations distinguish MOSAIC from prior work: (1) a cognitively motivated modular architecture whose functionally dissociable stages enable post hoc failure attribution through logged intermediate states; (2) a hierarchical three-tier emotional memory—perceptual, semantic, and episodic—coupled with adaptive three-dimensional retrieval over emotion, situation, and coping-strategy cues; and (3) a heterogeneous model orchestration strategy coordinating open-source and API-accessible models through role-specific chain-of-thought prompts, requiring no task-specific fine-tuning. We note that the EmpatheticDialogues evaluation pre-populates the memory store with 200 training-split episodes prior to test-set interaction, a data-access asymmetry relative to single-model baselines that must be borne in mind when interpreting comparative results. Experiments on EmpatheticDialogues and ESConv show that MOSAIC achieves a 76.4% weighted F1 and an empathy score of 3.87 (on a 1–5 Likert scale) and that it improves over single-model, training-free baselines on aggregate empathy and—most prominently—on human-rated personalization (3.67 vs. 3.24 against Claude-3.5 five-shot, $d=0.48$). We caution that the comparison against training-free baselines is not data access-controlled (see the cold-start discussion in Methods); the personalization advantage, supported by the ablation without the Event Agent, is the result we treat as the primary practical contribution of this work.