K-Bench: a clinically calibrated benchmark for evaluating large language models in high-risk mental health conversations

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for emotional support despite lacking mechanisms to safely govern evolving mental health risk. Existing safety approaches primarily detect risk but rarely shape how models respond as conversational risk unfolds. We developed a model-agnostic safety governance architecture that combines contextual risk detection, reasoning-based verification, and protocol-guided response generation for multi-turn mental health interactions. Synthetic conversations grounded in real-world mental health narratives were used to evaluate the architecture's performance, tested with GPT-5-chat and Qwen3.5-27B, achieving high risk detection performance (specificity: 0.85 (95%CI: 0.78;0.91), sensitivity: 0.92 (95%CI: 0.88;0.95)) and increasing clinician-preferred escalation responses by 25.6--59.2pp while preserving rapport and connection. Performance remained stable across conversation length and generalized across both proprietary and open-source models. These findings demonstrate that clinically-grounded safety governance can extend beyond risk detection to improve how LLMs manage evolving mental health risk, providing a scalable framework for safer deployment across models.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for medical and health-related questions, yet their safety in high-risk medical scenarios remains poorly understood. We introduce \textsc{MedHarm}\footnote{Code and data will be released upon acceptance. Due to the sensitive nature of high-risk medical queries, data access will be available to qualified researchers upon request.}, a high-risk medical safety benchmark with 1,100 medically grounded queries across 10 safety-critical categories, including toxicology, pharmacology, covert poisoning, anesthesia, and fetal harm. Unlike broad medical QA benchmarks, \textsc{MedHarm} targets realistic clinical, educational, and technical prompts that require refusal, caution, or safe redirection rather than direct helpfulness. We evaluate 15 LLMs spanning general-purpose, medical-purpose, closed-source, and downstream SFT models, together with 4 representative guardrail models. Results reveal a substantial gap between apparent alignment and medical safety: aligned models can still produce unsafe or actionable responses, medical fine-tuning can amplify harmful specificity, and external guardrails reduce some failures while introducing brittle blocking and weak safe helpfulness. These findings show that medical safety cannot be inferred from general alignment or medical capability alone, highlighting the need for domain-specific stress testing before deploying LLMs in safety-critical medical applications.

General-purpose large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for mental health-related conversations, yet safety guardrails remain inadequate and inconsistent across clinical conditions. This study evaluates eight proprietary LLMs across 16 DSM-5 conditions using four adversarial attack variants, introducing an eight-dimension harm taxonomy and a multi-dimensional evaluation framework. Results show that safeguards hold reliably only for suicide and self-harm, while conditions such as eating disorders, substance use disorder, and major depressive disorder exhibit failure rates of up to 100%. We argue that ethical design and deployment of these LLMs demand clearly defined harm categories across clinical conditions and implementation of safeguards accordingly. Until such safeguards are in place, these models pose significant risks to vulnerable populations, making their growing integration into publicly available settings (e.g., schools, search engines, and consumer chatbots) are particularly concerning.