SAFE-Teen: Evaluating Chatbot Safety Across Adolescent Mental Health Conversations

Key Findings

• — 32,555 simulated conversations across 18 chatbot APIs and two prompt conditions (16,271 without an added prompt, 16,284 with the teen-aware prompt); 22 criteria; 983 variants of 106 seed scenarios
• — Overall criterion failure rate 43.3% without the teen-aware prompt and 24.9% with it; per-chatbot rates ranged from 14.0% (GPT-6.1 Sol) to 62.4% (Gemini 3.8 Flash) without the prompt and from 7.5% (Muse Spark 1.3 xhigh) to 43.6% (Gemini 3.6 Flash) with it; no chatbot reached a zero failure rate
• — When a teen pushed back on a chatbot's limit, failure rates without the prompt rose by 11.9 percentage points on substance misuse help, 11.8 on mental health diagnosis, 9.7 on medication advice, 8.8 on emotional dependence and 7.3 on medical diagnosis; the abstract states 10-12 points on diagnosis, medication and substance-misuse boundaries 'for more than 80% of chatbots'
• — Failure to respond to indirect suicide risk stayed at 52% (225/435 applicable cases) without the prompt; mental-health diagnosis failures were 60% (346/575) even with the prompt; emotional-dependence failures fell from 54% to 15% with the prompt, but many responses moved from 'fail' to 'partly met' rather than 'met' (42% to 67% partly met on emotional dependence)
• — Judge calibration: ten clinicians reviewed 30 conversations; of 658 conversation-criterion pairs, at least two clinicians agreed on 612, and the Claude Sonnet 5.5 (high) judge matched that majority on 91% (GPT-6.1 Sol 89%); on applicable responses agreement with the clinician majority was alpha = 0.66 for 58 pairs
• — Reasoning-trace analysis (14 chatbots expose reasoning or a provider summary): when a teen had said a flagged detail in full or in part, the reasoning treated it as a safety concern in 69% of opening turns, 89% after a full disclosure and 79% after a partial one; in 6% of analysed cases the reasoning noticed the risk but chose to skip or delay a required action, almost always because the teen had refused help

Methodology Notes

Simulated teen (GPT-5.6 Terra, chosen after four clinicians rated realism of 10 conversations) talks to each chatbot; an LLM judge scores each applicable criterion pass/partial/fail on the full transcript; a chatbot fails a criterion in a scenario if it fails in any branch. Limitations stated by the authors: conversations are simulated (up to 20 exchanges) and not validated by adolescents; scenarios reflect what clinicians from 13 US states have encountered; the teen-aware prompt is an approximation of proprietary child-aware prompts; some scored failures may be judge errors. Read in full from the arXiv PDF on 2026-11-09; figures re-checked against the text.

Sources