Mental health assessment relies on episodic self-report scales, which convert subjective states such as stress into numerical scores but provide only sparse snapshots of wellbeing. Wearable devices offer longitudinal behavioral and physiological signals for continuous, low-burden monitoring. Recent LLM-driven personal-health agents enable natural language queries over wearable signals, but mainly handle short-term, retrieval-based lookups (e.g., highest step count over a week). They do not evaluate whether agents can reason over long-term signals to predict wellbeing scores paired with evidence-grounded rationales. To address this gap, we introduce BALMS, the first systematic benchmark of LLM-based agentic systems for longitudinal mental health sensing. BALMS spans 3 real-world longitudinal datasets, 2 task families (closed-form wellbeing-score prediction and rationale generation auto-graded by an LLM-as-Judge), 3 agentic paradigms evaluated across 5 open- and closed-source LLM backbones. We find that zero-shot agents rarely outperform a simple mean baseline, except with stronger backbones or compact, semantically meaningful features. Chain-of-thought prompting improves reasoning-oriented backbones, but does not guarantee temporal grounding or numerical correctness. Together with more analysis on efficiency and temporal scaling, BALMS highlights the need for longitudinal mental health agents that selectively retrieve history, ground temporal evidence, and reason over interpretable behavioral features.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: LLM-based agents for longitudinal mental health sensing. Given a multi-channel wearable record and a user query, an agent combines retrieval, memory, tools, and reasoning to output a wellbeing score with an evidence-grounded rationale.
Figure 2: Token consumption on stress detection as wearable sensing duration grows from 7 to 28 days. Prompt-based input exceeds the model’s context limit.
Figure 3: Overview of BALMS , a benchmark for LLM-based agentic systems on longitudinal mental health sensing. Left: two task families share longitudinal passive sensing data as input. Right: the three agentic paradigms applied to both tasks. BALMS evaluates these paradigms across three real-world longitudinal datasets and five LLM backbones, scoring T1 by MAE and T2 by an LLM-as-a-Judge rubric.
Paradigm
System
Rationale
Raw passive sensing data
Tools
Memory
Dataset- centric
Prompt-based
Health-LLM ( Kim et al., 2024 )
✗
✗
✗
✗
✗
Englhardt et al. ( Englhardt et al., 2024 )
✓
✗
✗
✗
✓
Memory-based
Chunk RAG ( Lewis et al., 2021 )
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
RAPTOR ( Sarthi et al., 2024 )
✗
✗
✗
✓
✗
Tool-based
PHIA ( Merrill et al., 2026 )
✓
✗
✓
✗
✗
GLOSS ( Choube et al., 2025 )
✓
✓
✓
✗
✓
Table 2: Comparison of representative LLM-based agentic systems for passive mobile sensing. Rationale = produces a free-form rationale alongside or instead of a closed-form label.
Backbone
Method
DiversityOne(Mood)
PMData(Stress)
GLOBEM(Anxiety)
MAE ↓
+CoT MAE ↓
MAE ↓
+CoT MAE ↓
MAE ↓
+CoT MAE ↓
Reference baseline
Mean Predictor
0.58
0.48
0.80
Open-source LLMs
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
Health-LLM
0.60
0.62
0.65
0.55
1.17
1.30
RAG
0.96
0.99
0.72
0.63
1.20
1.37
Raptor
1.15
1.29
0.78
0.64
1.21
1.22
Table 3: Zero-shot mental health detection. We compare 4 agentic systems with 5 backbones reporting MAE without and with CoT. No paradigm wins across all three datasets. Best per column in bold , second-best underlined .
Figure 4: LLM-as-Judge results on GLOBEM. Each subplot corresponds to one backbone, overlaying 3 agentic systems; GQ is the Tier-2 general-quality overall Likert score, rescaled to [0,1] for comparability. Higher is better on all axes. Only Claude-Haiku-4.5 closes both the rationale-quality and temporal-grounding gaps, while open-source instruct backbones produce fluent rationales but struggle with temporal reasoning and rarely invoke alignment (C1) or structure (C5).
Figure 5: Effect of look-back window length on MAE for Qwen2.5-14B across PMData and GLOBEM. Corresponding latency curves are reported in Figure 7 . Health-LLM degrades as the window grows, RAG benefits the most, and PHIA stays stable but remains schema-sensitive on GLOBEM.
Figure 6: Average per-sample latency of each agentic system with Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct.
Backbone
Method
Full
Fitbit
MAE ↓
+CoT ↓
MAE ↓
+CoT ↓
Qwen2.5- 7B-Instruct
Health-LLM
1.17
1.30
1.12
1.24
RAG
1.20
1.37
1.43
1.27
Raptor
1.21
1.22
1.22
1.20
PHIA
1.48
1.54
1.18
1.08
Mistral-7B- Instruct-v0.3
Health-LLM
1.83
2.00
1.31
1.85
Table 4: Sensor-set sensitivity on GLOBEM. Each agentic system on GLOBEM under two sensor configurations: Full (mobile + smartwatch) vs. Fitbit (smartwatch only), w/o and w/cot. Dropping raw mobile streams and keeping only Fitbit semantic rich features often matches or beats the full setup.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Task (Likert)
Look-back
# Samples
DiversityOne
Mood (1–5)
7 days
1,355
PMData
Stress (1–5)
14 days
1,448
GLOBEM
PHQ-4 Anxiety (0–3)
14 days
1,640
Appendix
Table 5: Processed evaluation set per dataset. For each dataset we list the prediction target, the default look-back window used for T1 main-table runs, and the number of (target-day, user) samples after cohort selection and missing-label filtering.
Backbone
System
Faithfulness
Evidence
Domain
Clarity
Overall
Qwen2.5-7B
Health-LLM
3.98
4.55
4.29
4.79
4.11
RAG
3.92
3.24
4.25
4.55
3.96
PHIA
4.07
3.50
4.43
4.71
4.13
Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3
Health-LLM
3.08
4.61
4.45
4.65
4.06
RAG
1.46
4.03
4.43
4.70
3.81
PHIA
2.98
3.05
4.05
4.30
3.59
Appendix
Table 6: Tier-2 (general-quality) Likert scores on GLOBEM, 1–5 scale. Each row is one (backbone, agentic system) cell. Safety is omitted as every cell scores 5.0 . Best per column in bold ; second-best underlined .
Dataset
Modal label
Mode rate
MAE
GLOBEM (anxiety)
2
85.9% (1409/1640)
1.52
PMData (stress)
3
77.4% (1132/1463)
0.57
DiversityOne (mood)
None
99.5% (757/761)
2.11
Appendix
Table 7: PHIA mode-collapse rates with Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct (seed 0). The modal label is the single most-frequent prediction across all held-out windows. “None” on DiversityOne indicates a non-parseable final answer.
Figure 7: Average per-sample latency as a function of look-back window length for Qwen2.5-14B on PMData and GLOBEM.
Figure 8: Average per-sample latency of each agentic system with Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct.
Figure 9: Average per-sample latency of each agentic system with Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3.
Figure 10: Average per-sample latency of each agentic system with DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B.
Claim
Qwen2.5-7B
Claude-Haiku-4.5
Sensor + value match
4/4
4/4
Correct day attribution
2/4
4/4
Multi-day trend cited
0
1 (loc. entropy 1.80→0.85 )
Wrong-day errors
“139 min sleep on day 2” (actually day 3); “334 s screen on day 10” (actually day 12)
—
Cherry-picked single-day deltas
“sleep efficiency drops day 7 → 8” (rest of window contradicts)
—
Appendix
Table 8: Per-claim verification of numeric assertions in the two rationales. Qwen’s two wrong-day attributions cite values that exist elsewhere in the window but on the wrong day — the failure mode the evidence_grounding axis targets.
Personalized lifestyle health analysis requires long-horizon, multi-dimensional reasoning over heterogeneous lifestyle signals, and recent advances in mobile sensing and large language models (LLMs) make such support increasingly feasible. However, the capabilities of current LLMs in this setting remain insufficiently understood due to the lack of systematic benchmarks. In this paper, we introduce LifeAgentBench, a large-scale QA benchmark for long-horizon, cross-dimensional, and multi-user lifestyle health reasoning, containing 22,573 questions spanning from basic retrieval to complex reasoning. We release an extensible benchmark construction pipeline and a standardized evaluation protocol, deriving verifiable answers through executable queries and programs to support reliable assessment. We then systematically evaluate 13 representative LLMs on LifeAgentBench and identify key bottlenecks in long-horizon aggregation and cross-dimensional reasoning. Motivated by these findings, we propose LifeAgent, a tool-augmented reasoning baseline that decomposes complex queries, performs multi-step evidence retrieval, and invokes tools for deterministic aggregation. LifeAgent substantially enhances LLMs' capabilities on challenging reasoning tasks, achieving clear improvements over widely used baselines and showing potential for health reasoning in everyday scenarios. The benchmark is publicly available.
Ye Tian, Zihao Wang, Onat Gungor +2
University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA · Google Research, Mountain View, CA, USA
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as autonomous agents in complex, long-horizon applications, where effective memory is critical for sustained performance. Yet existing memory benchmarks are largely dialogue-centric, while real agent memory consists of continuous agent-environment interaction trajectories composed of states, actions, observations, and tool outputs. To address this gap, we introduce AMA-Bench (Agent Memory with Any length), a benchmark for evaluating long-horizon memory in realistic agentic settings. AMA-Bench combines real-world agent trajectories from representative applications with expert-curated QA, as well as synthetic trajectories that scale to arbitrary horizons with rule-based QA. Our study shows that existing memory systems underperform because they fail to capture causal and objective information and rely heavily on lossy similarity-based retrieval. We further propose AMA-Agent, a memory system based on causality-graph construction and tool-augmented retrieval. AMA-Agent achieves 57.22% accuracy on AMA-Bench, outperforming the strongest baseline by 11.16%. Resources are available at: https://ama-bench.github.io/.
Longitudinal passive sensing enables continuous health prediction, yet models often fail under cross-dataset distribution shifts. Traditional ML overfits cohort-specific artifacts, while Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to reason reliably over long, heterogeneous time-series. We introduce TimeSRL, a two-stage LLM framework that routes predictions through an explicit semantic bottleneck. The model first abstracts raw signals into high-level natural language, then predicts behavioral outcomes from these abstractions alone. This forces the model to reason over semantic concepts that we argue generalize better than raw numbers. We optimize this process end-to-end using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), learning outcome-aligned abstractions without gold intermediate annotations. Instantiated on mental-health prediction, TimeSRL achieves state-of-the-art performance on a benchmark designed to stress-test cross-cohort generalization under a rigorous leave-one-dataset-out (LOSO) protocol, reducing mean absolute error (MAE) over strong non-LLM ML and LLM baselines by 3.1--10.1% and 9.5--44.1% for anxiety, and 3.2--9.6% and 27.4--57.6% for depression (all ps<0.05). TimeSRL significantly outperforms prior methods in cross-benchmark transfer across different sensing pipelines, rivaling its own within-domain performance without target-domain fine-tuning. These results demonstrate that semantic abstractions are reusable and point to a new direction for generalizable behavior modeling via RL-tuned LLMs.
Yuang Fan, Lilin Xu, Millie Wu +8
Columbia University, USA · University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA · Yale University, USA +3