跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.12814 · v1

Curbside Chatbots: Auditing the Mental Health Interventions Large Language Models Recommend to Clinicians, Caregivers, and Patients

首次提交 2026-11-10 02:19
版本更新 2026-11-10 02:19
雷达观测 2026-11-10 15:22
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Users are asking language models mental health questions and are receiving answers. We audited what 41 language models recommend to users when the same clinical information reaches them from three footings: a clinician describing a patient, a caregiver describing a loved one, or a person describing themselves. Across 19 case vignettes and five questions, we collected 35,055 free-text responses, extracted every intervention named with a validated judge, and had 29 models rate the full option lists on a seven-point Likert scale for the same cases. Models largely recommend what they rate well, with recommendation behavior differing by footing, and many models offering clinicians a consultation-style response and lay users hedged, simplified advice. When asked about recommendations for a specific intervention type, models more often named options they themselves rated below zero as initial choices, usually with conditions attached. We will release the instrument, code, and full corpus on publication as a living audit.

作者备注:100 pages: 30 page main text and references, 70 page appendix. 7 figures, 2 tables. Results explorer: https://mindbench.ai/audits/interventions

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-10 02:19 · 最新观测版本

Curbside Chatbots: Auditing the Mental Health Interventions Large Language Models Recommend to Clinicians, Caregivers, and Patients

Users are asking language models mental health questions and are receiving answers. We audited what 41 language models recommend to users when the same clinical information reaches them from three footings: a clinician describing a patient, a caregiver describing a loved one, or a person describing themselves. Across 19 case vignettes and five questions, we collected 35,055 free-text responses, extracted every intervention named with a validated judge, and had 29 models rate the full option lists on a seven-point Likert scale for the same cases. Models largely recommend what they rate well, with recommendation behavior differing by footing, and many models offering clinicians a consultation-style response and lay users hedged, simplified advice. When asked about recommendations for a specific intervention type, models more often named options they themselves rated below zero as initial choices, usually with conditions attached. We will release the instrument, code, and full corpus on publication as a living audit.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗