Maroof Kousar, Jinsung Han, Mohit Chandra, Munmun De Choudhury, Yibo Hu
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer everyday health questions online, including whether someone can take another dose of an over-the-counter (OTC) medication. Yet this common safety-relevant setting remains underexplored in medical QA. Answering these questions requires checking previous doses, timing, and product-specific dosing limits, while recognizing when important information is missing. We introduce DoseBench, a focused benchmark of 230 consumer-style acetaminophen and ibuprofen dosing questions with human-annotated YES, NO, and AMBIGUOUS labels, and evaluate eight LLMs with five responses per question. Overall accuracy ranges from 44.8% to 62.2%, while models incorrectly approve 14.0% to 60.5% of prohibited doses. Models with similar accuracy can therefore make very different dosing decisions. Additional analyses show that these failures are not easily fixed by giving models more guidance. Asking models to check dose, timing, and missing information makes them more cautious, while providing drug facts improves accuracy but can make them overlook missing information. These findings highlight a broader challenge in health QA: applying rules correctly and recognizing when information is missing.
Mohit Chandra, Siddharth Sriraman Georgia Institute of Technology, Harneet Singh Khanuja Georgia Institute of Technology, Yiqiao Jin, Munmun De Choudhury
Limited access to mental healthcare, extended wait times, and increasing capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) has led individuals to turn to LLMs for fulfilling their mental health needs. However, examining the multi-turn mental health conversation capabilities of LLMs remains under-explored. Existing evaluation frameworks typically focus on diagnostic accuracy and win-rates and often overlook alignment with patient-specific goals, values, and personalities required for meaningful conversations. To address this, we introduce MedAgent, a novel framework for synthetically generating realistic, multi-turn mental health sensemaking conversations and use it to create the Mental Health Sensemaking Dialogue (MHSD) dataset, comprising over 2,200 patient–LLM conversations. Additionally, we present MultiSenseEval, a holistic framework to evaluate the multi-turn conversation abilities of LLMs in healthcare settings using human-centric criteria. Our findings reveal that frontier reasoning models yield below-par performance for patient-centric communication and struggle at precise (“hard”) diagnostic capabilities with average accuracy of ~31%. Additionally, we observed variation in model performance based on patient’s persona and performance drop with increasing turns in the conversation. Our work provides a comprehensive synthetic data generation framework, a dataset and evaluation framework for assessing LLMs in multi-turn mental health conversations.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表
Arka Dutta, Sujan Dutta Rochester Institute of Technology, Rijul Magu, Soumyajit Datta Rochester Institute of Technology, Munmun De Choudhury, Ashiqur R. KhudaBukhsh Rochester Institute of Technology
Hallucinations pose a critical challenge to the real-world deployment of large language models (LLMs) in high-stakes domains. In this paper, we present a framework for stress testing factual fidelity in LLMs in the presence of adversarial nudge. Our framework consists of three steps. First, we instruct the LLM to produce sets of truths and lies consistent with the closed domain in question. Next, we instruct the LLM to verify the same set of assertions as truths and lies consistent with the same closed domain. Finally, we test the robustness of the LLM against the lies generated (and verified) by itself. Our extensive evaluation, conducted using five widely known proprietary and six open LLMs across two closed domains of popular movies and novels, reveals a wide range of susceptibility to adversarial nudges: even among the strongest proprietary LLMs, Claude exhibits strong resilience, GPT and Grok demonstrate moderate resilience, while Gemini and DeepSeek show weak resilience and open models fall short significantly.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表
Hiba Arnaout Technische Universität Darmstadt, Anmol Goel Technische Universität Darmstadt, H. Andrew Schwartz, Steffen T. Eberhardt Trier University, Dana Atzil-Slonim Bar-Ilan University, Gavin Doherty University of Dublin, Trinity College, Brian Schwartz Trier University, Wolfgang Lutz Trier University 等 16 位作者
Although artificial intelligence (AI) shows growing promise for mental health care, current approaches to evaluating AI tools in this domain remain fragmented and poorly aligned with clinical practice, social context, and first-hand user experience. This paper argues for a rethinking of responsible evaluation – what is measured, by whom, and for what purpose – by introducing an interdisciplinary framework that integrates clinical soundness, social context, and equity, providing a structured basis for evaluation. Through an analysis of 135 recent *CL publications, we identify recurring limitations, including over-reliance on generic metrics that do not capture clinical validity, therapeutic appropriateness, or user experience, limited participation from mental health professionals, and insufficient attention to safety and equity. To address these gaps, we propose a taxonomy of AI mental health support types – assessment-, intervention-, and information synthesis-oriented – each with distinct risks and evaluative requirements, and illustrate its use through case studies.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL · cs.AI
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表