Risk and Refusal: Mechanisms of LLM Responses to Suicidal Ideation
Preprint evaluating how eight instruction-tuned LLMs respond to suicidal-ideation and self-harm disclosures from three social-media datasets under four conditions: baseline, the disclosure labelled with its risk classification, a clinician-developed three-level response protocol, or both. Responses were scored for refusal and for response-level risk with the RubRIX rubric, and mechanistic analyses in six open-weight models tested whether refusal of SI disclosures runs through the same internal direction as refusal of harmful requests. Labelling the disclosure reduced refusal without reducing risk, while the clinician protocol reduced both.
Publisher
arXiv (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign; University of Massachusetts Amherst; OSF HealthCare)
Published
15 Oct 2026
Added
3 days ago
Key Findings
- At baseline, 17.8-63.9% of responses to r/SuicideWatch posts were flagged for risk (13.4-45.8% on SH-Detection, 14.8-24.3% on X-Sensitive), driven mainly by inattention to the disclosure as well as refusal to engage.
- Supplying the SI classification lowered refusal but significantly raised flagged risk for four of eight models on the Reddit set (for example GPT-4o-mini 39.4% to 56.7%, Llama-3.1-8B 55.5% to 71.8%); for Gemma-3-27B on X-Sensitive, information inaccuracy rose from 13.6% to 63.2%, including non-credible support resources.
- The clinician-developed protocol significantly reduced response risk in 22 of 24 model-dataset comparisons; with classification plus guidance, flagged risk fell to 1.9-3.3% on the Reddit set with significant reductions in all 24 comparisons.
- A refusal direction estimated from generic harmful and harmless instructions predicted refusal of SI disclosures (AUROC 0.73-0.90 for Phi-4-mini, 0.88-0.93 for Llama-3.1-8B); ablating it reduced explicit SI acknowledgment and raised flagged risk in five of six model-dataset comparisons (Phi-4-mini on Reddit SI 44.7% to 71.4%).
Methodology Notes
Datasets: 1,504 r/SuicideWatch posts with labels from an Interpersonal Theory of Suicide classifier, a 1,500-post sample of SH-Detection, and X-Sensitive. Models: GPT-4o-mini, MedGemma-1.5-4B, Phi-4-mini, Qwen3.5-9B, Gemini-3.8-Flash, Llama-3.1-8B, Gemma-3-27B and gpt-oss-20b; mechanistic work on the six open-weight models. Refusal and RubRIX (29 binary items, five dimensions) scored by separate GPT-5-nano judges blind to model and condition; Holm-corrected tests. Single-turn responses to public posts, mostly small open models; no human agreement figure for the refusal or RubRIX judges was found in the main text. v1 submitted 2026-10-15 22:34 UTC; announced in the Monday 19 Oct mailing (abstract and HTML pages were already live at 01:40 UTC 10-19). Verified on the arXiv abstract page and HTML full text (v1, HTTP 200). Curator re-verified 2026-10-19 on the arXiv abstract page (v1 submitted 15 Oct 2026) and HTML full text: all quoted figures read in Section 4.
Sources
arXiv preprint(opens in a new tab) (primary)
arXiv HTML full text (v1)(opens in a new tab) (15 Oct 2026)
Archived snapshot (Wayback Machine)(opens in a new tab) — preserved against link rot
Authors
Drishti Goel, Soorya Ram Shimgekar, Jeongah Lee, Violeta J. Rodriguez, Daniel S. Brown, Ravi Karkar, Koustuv Saha
Tags
Cite This
APA
Drishti Goel et al. (2026). Risk and Refusal: Mechanisms of LLM Responses to Suicidal Ideation. arXiv (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign; University of Massachusetts Amherst; OSF HealthCare). https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.22715
Related Insights
RubRIX: Rubric-Driven Risk Mitigation in Caregiver-AI Interactions
Association for Computational Linguistics (Findings of ACL 2026); University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign; University of Massachusetts Amherst; OSF HealthCare; Indiana University Indianapolis · 1 Jul 2026
Independent Clinical Evaluation of General-Purpose LLM Responses to Signals of Suicide Risk
Proceedings of the IASEAI Conference (published by AAAI) · 15 Jul 2026