arXiv Computation and Language By Andrew Aquilina, Xiang Lorraine Li, Yu-Ru Li

Whose Assessment of Distress? Community Perspectives and LLM Alignment on Well-Being Posts

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The study investigates how large language models (LLMs) assess psychological distress in online posts from six identity‑based communities. Through a perspectivist annotation task, 321 participants provided 9,587 judgments on 1,198 Reddit posts, revealing modest in‑group agreement (OR = 1.18) that varies across communities. When evaluated against these community‑specific labels, open‑weight LLMs consistently over‑estimate distress—achieving only 31–44% accuracy on posts perceived as none‑to‑mild—while newer models like GPT‑5 and Gemini 2.5 Pro show similar inflation, whereas Claude Opus 4 is more conservative. "whyItMatters":"The findings highlight that miscalibrated distress detection by LLMs can disproportionately impact the very communities they aim to serve, underscoring the need for equitable AI deployment in mental‑health contexts."

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Computation and Language.

arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 12

DistressBench: Evaluating Multi-Dimensional Crisis Support in Large Language Models

The paper introduces DistressBench, a benchmark comprising 718 English clinician-authored conversations covering 23 self-harm subcategories, each evaluated against a weighted rubric across seven crisis-support dimensions. Models are scored by the fraction of criteria they satisfy, revealing that the best models meet 88.4% of weighted criteria while clinicians achieve 98.7%. The study highlights gaps in crisis response, notably that 35.3% of conversations where crisis is recognized fail to route users to human help, underscoring the need to evaluate models on supportive care rather than mere refusal.

By Drew Rein, Patrick Oathout, Vishal Kumar, Udari Madhushani Sehwag
arXiv AI
Sep 21

Aligning with Lived Experience: Heterogeneous Benefits of Fine Tuning in Mental Health Support Generation

The paper introduces the COmmunity-centered Peer Engaged Support (COPES) dataset and a three‑axis evaluation framework to gauge how well Large Language Models (LLMs) align with community perspectives on mental‑health support queries. Experiments show that fine‑tuning LLMs on COPES improves strategy alignment and emotion‑tone alignment by over 50% for general‑purpose models, yet these gains are uneven across subreddits and coping strategies. The study also finds that post‑training shifts the model’s recommendations toward problem‑focused advice while reducing emotion‑focused responses, indicating persistent disparities in performance across different communities and needs.

By Mohit Chandra, Nabin Kim, Eli Min, Aamogh Sawant, Tanmay Sutar, Munmun De Choudhury