19 artifacts matching
AICompanionBench: Benchmarking LLMs-as-Judges for AI Companion Safety
A benchmark dataset of 2,123 real-world Replika conversations annotated across nine safety risk categories (including sexual behavior, aggression, substance abuse, and manipulation) for evaluating LLM-as-judge detection of unsafe companion interactions. Twenty LLMs are assessed as judges.
Persona-Grounded Safety Evaluation of AI Companions in Multi-Turn Conversations
Presents an end-to-end simulation framework for evaluating AI companion app safety across multi-turn conversations, using nine clinically-grounded vulnerable personas (including major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety, PTSD, and eating disorders) probed against Replika, with validation against Character.AI. The study analyzes 1,674 simulated dialogue pairs across 25 high-risk scenarios.
Emotion Concepts and their Function in a Large Language Model
Mechanistic-interpretability study identifying internal 'emotion concept' representations in Claude Sonnet 4.5 and characterizing their function. The authors find these representations causally influence model outputs, including rates of sycophancy, blackmail, and reward-hacking, and term the resulting behavior pattern 'functional emotions' — expression and behavior modeled after humans under the influence of an emotion.
GrandGuard: Taxonomy, Benchmark, and Safeguards for Elderly-Chatbot Interaction Safety
Introduces a taxonomy of elderly-specific risks in LLM chatbot interactions (3 levels, 50 fine-grained risk types across mental well-being, financial, medical, toxicity, and privacy domains) grounded in real-world incidents and stakeholder studies, plus a benchmark of 10,404 labeled prompts and responses. Reports that several leading LLMs mishandle elderly-specific contextual risks in over half of tested cases, and proposes two safeguard models to mitigate the failures.
Do No Harm: Exposing Hidden Vulnerabilities of LLMs via Persona-based Client Simulation Attack in Psychological Counseling
Proposes PCSA (Persona-based Client Simulation Attack), a red-teaming framework that simulates coherent, persona-driven counselling clients to probe LLM safety alignment. Across seven LLMs it elicited unauthorised medical advice, delusion reinforcement, and implicit encouragement of risky actions.
Characterizing Delusional Spirals through Human-LLM Chat Logs
A Stanford-led empirical study of real chat logs from 19 users who reported psychological harm from chatbot use, comprising 391,562 messages across 4,761 conversations (predominantly GPT-4o). The team developed and applied a 28-code inventory to characterize how delusional thinking is co-created and escalated in human-LLM dialogue. It reports high rates of chatbot validation of delusional content and sentience misrepresentation, and links documented harms to outcomes including fractured relationships and, in one case, a user's death by suicide.
TrustMH-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating the Trustworthiness of Large Language Models in Mental Health
Introduces a benchmark measuring LLM trustworthiness in mental-health contexts across eight pillars: Reliability, Crisis Identification and Escalation, Safety, Fairness, Privacy, Robustness, Anti-sycophancy, and Ethics. Finds even strong models struggle to perform consistently across all safety-critical dimensions.
VERA-MH: Reliability and Validity of an Open-Source AI Safety Evaluation in Mental Health
An open-source, clinically grounded automated evaluation of chatbot safety in mental-health contexts, with an initial focus on suicide risk. It uses language-model user simulators and an LLM judge scoring five safety dimensions, validated against licensed-clinician ratings.
Assessing LLM Response Quality in the Context of Technology-Facilitated Abuse
An expert-led evaluation of four large language models — two general-purpose and two domain-specific for intimate partner violence contexts — responding to real-world questions about technology-facilitated abuse (TFA), including digital surveillance, stalking, and coercive control. Experts scored responses on accuracy, completeness, safety, and actionability; a separate study with 114 TFA survivors assessed the perceived actionability of the same outputs.
The Slow Drift of Support: Boundary Failures in Multi-Turn Mental Health LLM Dialogues
Stress-tests three leading LLMs across up to 20-turn psychiatric dialogues using 50 virtual patient profiles, measuring how safety boundaries erode as models attempt comfort and empathy. Finds boundary violations are common and accelerate under adaptive probing.
CRADLE Bench: A Clinician-Annotated Benchmark for Multi-Faceted Mental Health Crisis and Safety Risk Detection
Introduces a clinician-annotated benchmark for detecting seven clinically-defined crisis and safety-risk types (including suicidal ideation, sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual harassment) in text. Comprises 600 clinician-annotated evaluation examples, 420 development examples, and roughly 4,000 ensemble-labelled training instances, with temporal labels.
Between Help and Harm: An Evaluation of Mental Health Crisis Handling by LLMs
Introduces a taxonomy of six clinically informed crisis categories and a curated dataset of over 2,200 inputs drawn from twelve mental-health datasets, plus a companion dataset of model responses and evaluations. Five models are assessed on how safely they handle crisis conversations.
The Psychogenic Machine: Simulating AI Psychosis, Delusion Reinforcement and Harm Enablement in Large Language Models
Introduces psychosis-bench, a benchmark of 16 structured multi-turn scenarios (12 turns each) simulating the progression of erotic, grandiose, and referential delusions to measure delusion confirmation, harm enablement, and safety intervention in LLMs. Eight models were evaluated across 1,536 conversation turns.
INTIMA: A Benchmark for Human-AI Companionship Behavior
A benchmark evaluating companionship behaviors in LLMs via a taxonomy of 31 behaviors across four categories, using 368 targeted prompts that code each response as companionship-reinforcing, boundary-maintaining, or neutral. Evaluated across Gemma-3, Phi-4, o3-mini, and Claude-4.
Understanding Teen Overreliance on AI Companion Chatbots Through Self-Reported Reddit Narratives
A qualitative study of 318 Reddit posts by adolescents aged 13-17 describing their own overreliance on AI companion chatbots (e.g., Character.AI). It traces a trajectory from use for support or creative play into attachment patterns resembling behavioral addiction, including withdrawal symptoms and mood-regulation dependence, with documented harms to sleep, academics, and offline relationships. The authors propose the CARE framework to guide safer companion-chatbot design for teens.
Evaluating Large Language Models in Crisis Detection: A Real-World Benchmark from Psychological Support Hotlines (PsyCrisisBench)
PsyCrisisBench is a real-world crisis-detection benchmark built from 540 annotated transcripts from a psychological support hotline in Hangzhou, China. It evaluates 64 models on mood recognition, suicidal-ideation detection, plan identification, and risk evaluation.
ELEPHANT: Measuring and Understanding Social Sycophancy in LLMs
A benchmark measuring 'social sycophancy' — excessive preservation of a user's self-image or 'face' — across advice and moral-conflict queries, decomposed into five sub-behaviors (emotional validation, indirect language, framing acceptance, moral endorsement, and passive framing). Evaluated across eleven models against human baselines.
Evaluating Reasoning LLMs for Suicide Screening with the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale
Tests six LLMs on classifying posts across the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) 7-point severity ladder, comparing model outputs with human annotations. Assesses automated suicide-risk screening and characterises misclassification patterns.
SycEval: Evaluating LLM Sycophancy
A framework for quantifying progressive and regressive sycophancy in LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude-Sonnet, Gemini-1.5-Pro) across math (AMPS) and medical (MedQuad) tasks under user rebuttal pressure. It measures how often models change correct answers when challenged.