Mental Health Counseling

AI is increasingly used for mental health and well-being support, creating an urgent need for safer engagement, while design, evaluation, and governance take time to develop. We explore a complementary approach: helping users critically reflect on their own AI conversations. We introduce CounselReflect, a tool that translates literature-grounded counseling quality metrics into a user-facing reflection framework. Using CounselReflect as a study probe, we interviewed 21 users of AI for mental health and well-being support. Although most participants did not routinely reflect on their conversations, they articulated concrete questions they would want reflection to address. Tool-assisted reflection also revealed challenges: participants selectively sought evidence confirming existing perceptions of AI and prioritized dimensions they already valued. We argue that reflection tools should surface blind spots and scaffold more holistic examination of AI interactions. Finally, overcoming emotional barriers to revisiting tense conversations remains a major design challenge and warrants input from future work.

We present Tell Me, a mental well-being system that leverages advances in large language models to provide accessible, context-aware support for users and researchers. The system integrates three components: (i) a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) assistant for personalized, knowledge-grounded dialogue; (ii) a synthetic client-therapist dialogue generator conditioned on client profiles to facilitate research on therapeutic language and data augmentation; and (iii) a Well-being AI crew, implemented with CrewAI, that produces weekly self-care plans and guided meditation audio. The system is designed as a reflective space for emotional processing rather than a substitute for professional therapy. It illustrates how conversational assistants can lower barriers to support, complement existing care, and broaden access to mental health resources. To address the shortage of confidential therapeutic data, we introduce synthetic client-therapist dialogue generation conditioned on client profiles. Finally, the planner demonstrates an innovative agentic workflow for dynamically adaptive, personalized self-care, bridging the limitations of static well-being tools. We describe the architecture, demonstrate its functionalities, and report evaluation of the RAG assistant in curated well-being scenarios using both automatic LLM-based judgments and a human-user study. This work highlights opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration between NLP researchers and mental health professionals to advance responsible innovation in human-AI interaction for well-being.

The growing demand for scalable psychological counseling highlights the need for high-quality, privacy-compliant data, yet such data remains scarce. Here we introduce MAGneT, a novel multi-agent framework for synthetic psychological counseling session generation that decomposes counselor response generation into coordinated sub-tasks handled by specialized LLM agents, each modeling a key psychological technique. Unlike prior single-agent approaches, MAGneT better captures the structure and nuance of real counseling. We further propose a unified evaluation framework that consolidates diverse automatic metrics and expands expert assessment from four to nine counseling aspects, thus addressing inconsistencies in prior evaluation protocols. Empirically, MAGneT substantially outperforms existing methods: experts prefer MAGneT-generated sessions in 77.2% of cases on average across the nine aspects over the strongest baseline, and sessions generated by MAGneT using Llama3-8B-Instruct backbone yield 3.2% higher general counseling skills and 4.3% higher CBT-specific skills on cognitive therapy rating scale (CTRS). An open source Llama3-8B-Instruct model fine-tuned on MAGneT-generated data also outperforms models fine-tuned using baseline synthetic datasets by 6.9% on average on CTRS. We make our code, data and fine-tuned model public.

Large language models (LLMs) may support counseling training, yet evidence from Japanese-language interactions and automated quality ratings remains limited. We examined 18 fixed Japanese-language counseling transcripts generated through artificial intelligence (AI)-to-AI interactions under three counselor conditions: GPT-minimal (GPT-4-turbo with a minimal role instruction), GPT-SMDP (GPT-4-turbo with the Structured Multi-step Dialogue Prompt [SMDP]), and Claude-SMDP (Claude-3-Opus with SMDP). Fifteen counseling experts rated transcripts on four adapted global scales from the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity coding manual and an overall-quality item; three newer LLMs independently rated the same transcripts in three iterations. In this fixed stimulus set, SMDP-condition dialogues received higher expert ratings for cultivating change talk, partnership, empathy, and overall quality than GPT-minimal dialogues; the two SMDP counselor models did not differ. LLM ratings were reproducible but generally more lenient than expert-reference ratings, particularly for softening sustain talk and overall quality. Simulated-client naturalness was below the scale midpoint. These findings provide an expert-referenced benchmark for Japanese-language AI counseling simulations and show that reproducible LLM ratings should not be treated as calibrated counseling-quality evidence without expert validation. This study does not test clinical effectiveness or human-client outcomes.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used as ad hoc therapists. While prior research has found that LLMs outperform human counselors in generating single-turn empathetic responses, fewer studies have compared their behaviors across multi-turn sessions. In this study, we compare the session-level behaviors of human peer counselors with those of an LLM, both trained on the same manual to deliver multi-turn, single-session Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Our three-phase, mixed-methods study involved: (a) an 18-month ethnography of a peer support platform, where seven counselors iteratively refined CBT prompts through 110 self-counseling sessions and 60 weekly focus groups; (b) a novel session generation method that allows direct, controlled comparison of human and LLM counselors under matched conditions---client responses were drawn from publicly available human-led CBT sessions while counselor responses were generated by a CBT-prompted LLM; and (c) expert evaluations conducted by three licensed clinical psychologists. Through data triangulation, our results show a trade-off. Human peer counselors use relational techniques to interpret subtle cues, adapt CBT to users' values and cultural contexts, and use strategies such as small talk and contextually relevant self-disclosure to build rapport and guide the session, but often at the expense of session structure and therapeutic focus. LLM counselors, on the other hand, demonstrate greater methodological adherence to CBT techniques, but struggle to sustain turn-taking, frequently fail to distinguish between clinically important and trivial content, and are more prone to lecturing and imposing solutions. LLM counselors also tend to produce ``deceptive empathy'', excessively anthropomorphic responses that can inflate user expectations of genuine human care.