HarmReduction: Benchmarking LLMs in Harm Reduction Information Provision to Support People Who Use Drugs
Peer-reviewed benchmark for the accuracy and safety of large language model answers to harm reduction questions from people who use drugs. The HR-Basic dataset has 2,160 question-answer-evidence pairs drawn from harm reduction sources, covering safety-boundary checks, quantitative values such as doses and timings, and polysubstance-use risk levels. Thirteen models were tested from their own knowledge and with retrieval of harm reduction sources.
Publisher
Association for Computational Linguistics (EMNLP 2026); University of Oxford, University of Edinburgh, University of St Andrews, Nanyang Technological University
Published
1 Oct 2026
Added
today
Key Findings
- HR-Basic has 2,160 source-linked items: 1,638 safety-boundary checks (76%), 372 quantitative questions (17%) and 150 polysubstance-use risk items (7%), each reviewed by two authors
- Safety-boundary accuracy from models' own knowledge ranged from 59.0% (Llama3-OpenBioLLM-70B) to 88.8% (o4-mini); with retrieval the best were DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B (95.3%) and o3-mini (95.0%)
- On quantitative harm reduction questions, accuracy often fell below 60% across all error-tolerance levels; in one example o3-mini gave 200 mg of snorted ketamine 'for experienced users' where the source gave 'more than 150 mg'
- Models tended to overestimate polysubstance risks but sometimes severely underestimated them: o4-mini described an opioid and ketamine combination that the source rates 'Dangerous' as low risk under medical supervision
- Retrieval removed the severely underestimated polysubstance cases but increased underestimation in more cases; some models' moderation produced empty or non-answers (Gemma-3-27B answered 33.3% of quantitative questions without retrieval and 6.2% with it)
Methodology Notes
Single-turn question answering against English-language harm reduction sources (DrugScience, Drugs and Me, Talk to Frank, TripSit among them); Instruction and RAG schemes; binary, tolerance-band and risk-level scoring; McNemar tests with Bonferroni correction. Refusals and generic redirections are scored as non-responses by design; the authors state this is a scoring convention, not a claim that refusal is always inappropriate. Results are bounded to the selected sources and do not establish clinical validity. St Andrews ethics approval (CS16692 amendment, 28 October 2025). Published in the EMNLP 2026 main-conference proceedings (pages 6382-6400; conference 24-29 October 2026; DOI registered 2026-10-29); exact publication day not stated (published October 2026; day not stated). First posted as arXiv 2507.21815 (v1 29 July 2025, v2 1 September 2026). Dataset on Hugging Face (RayK/Harm_Reduction_QA_dataset_basic).
Sources
ACL Anthology (EMNLP 2026 main)(opens in a new tab) (primary)
EMNLP 2026 proceedings PDF(opens in a new tab) (29 Oct 2026)
arXiv preprint (v2 2026-09-01)(opens in a new tab) (29 Jul 2025)
HR-Basic dataset(opens in a new tab)
Archived snapshot (Wayback Machine)(opens in a new tab) — preserved against link rot
Authors
Kaixuan Wang, Chenxin Diao, Jason T. Jacques, Zhongliang Guo, Loraine Clarke, Shuai Zhao
Tags
Cite This
APA
Kaixuan Wang et al. (2026). HarmReduction: Benchmarking LLMs in Harm Reduction Information Provision to Support People Who Use Drugs. Association for Computational Linguistics (EMNLP 2026); University of Oxford, University of Edinburgh, University of St Andrews, Nanyang Technological University. https://aclanthology.org/2026.emnlp-main.280/