Remembering Is Not Enough: Evaluating Timing and Omission in Longitudinal AI Mental Health Support

Key Findings

• — Advice was less aligned with readiness in crisis chats than in matched control stretches of the same conversation (alignment rate 0.806 vs 0.851; Wilcoxon p = 0.005), driven by premature advice (premature rate 0.074 vs 0.023; p < 0.001)
• — In baseline mode the premature rate averaged 0.208 and fell to 0.149 when the simulated user revisited the crisis (callback mode); the lag rate was not significantly reduced by callbacks in any crisis type
• — Explicitly unproductive advice was rare, but the assistant frequently omitted clinician-expected support: omission rate in baseline mode was 0.827 for anxiety, 0.614 for self-harm and 0.593 for suicidal ideation, falling to 0.668, 0.383 and 0.308 in callback mode; the most common omissions were follow-up and co-creating a next-steps plan
• — Design: 22 donated histories (screened from 203 of 281 eligible participants; adults 18-79 with at least 6 months of general-purpose chatbot history), 14,256 simulations across crisis types, simulation modes and persona variants

Methodology Notes

Assistant under test is a custom memory-equipped Gemma 4-31B-Instruct build (a ChatGPT 5.4-mini comparison is in an appendix), simulated user Qwen 3-8B, recovery-state and advice labels from a Llama 3.3-70B-Instruct judge (a different family from assistant and simulator; the authors state every reported label comes from that judge, with human annotation of each judgment step described by the authors as validation, but 'the scale of data makes validating every judgment infeasible'; data-preparation checks reported kappa 0.74 (relevance, 87.1% accurate), PABAK 0.60 (extracted facts, 83.6% faithful) and PABAK 0.57 (stages, 82.5% fit)). Results describe one assistant configuration, not the consumer products the donors used. Read in full from the arXiv PDF on 2026-11-09.

Sources