Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

Reliable Self-Harm Risk Screening via Adaptive Multi-Agent LLM Systems

Meghana Karnam, Ananya Joshi

Published

Apr 24, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

27/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

45% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Apr 24, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

General Llm As Judge Long Horizon Multi Agent

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
27/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Emerging AI systems in behavioral health and psychiatry use multi-step or multi-agent LLM pipelines for tasks like assessing self-harm risk and screening for depression. However, common evaluation approaches, like LLM-as-a-judge, do not indicate when a decision is reliable or how errors may accumulate across multiple LLM judgements, limiting their suitability for safety-critical settings. We present a statistical framework for multi-agent pipelines structured as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) that provides an alternative to heuristic voting with principled, adaptive decision-making. We model each agent as a stochastic categorical decision and introduce (1) tighter agent-level performance confidence bounds, (2) a bandit-based adaptive sampling strategy based on input difficulty, and (3) regret guarantees over the multi-agent system that shows logarithmic error growth when deployed. We evaluate our system on two labeled datasets in behavioral health : the AEGIS 2.0 behavioral health subset (N=161) and a stratified sample of SWMH Reddit posts (N=250). Empirically, our adaptive sampling strategy achieves the lowest false positive rate of any condition across both datasets, 0.095 on AEGIS 2.0 compared to 0.159 for single-agent models, reducing incorrect flagging of safe content by 40\% and still having similar false negative rates across all conditions. These results suggest that principled adaptive sampling offers a meaningful improvement in precision without reducing recall in this setting.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Emerging AI systems in behavioral health and psychiatry use multi-step or multi-agent LLM pipelines for tasks like assessing self-harm risk and screening for depression."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Llm As Judge

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Emerging AI systems in behavioral health and psychiatry use multi-step or multi-agent LLM pipelines for tasks like assessing self-harm risk and screening for depression."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Emerging AI systems in behavioral health and psychiatry use multi-step or multi-agent LLM pipelines for tasks like assessing self-harm risk and screening for depression."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Emerging AI systems in behavioral health and psychiatry use multi-step or multi-agent LLM pipelines for tasks like assessing self-harm risk and screening for depression."

Reported Metrics

partial

Precision, Recall

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"These results suggest that principled adaptive sampling offers a meaningful improvement in precision without reducing recall in this setting."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

precisionrecall
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Llm As Judge
Agentic eval
Long Horizon, Multi Agent
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Emerging AI systems in behavioral health and psychiatry use multi-step or multi-agent LLM pipelines for tasks like assessing self-harm risk and screening for depression.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Emerging AI systems in behavioral health and psychiatry use multi-step or multi-agent LLM pipelines for tasks like assessing self-harm risk and screening for depression.
  • However, common evaluation approaches, like LLM-as-a-judge, do not indicate when a decision is reliable or how errors may accumulate across multiple LLM judgements, limiting their suitability for safety-critical settings.
  • We present a statistical framework for multi-agent pipelines structured as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) that provides an alternative to heuristic voting with principled, adaptive decision-making.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Long-horizon tasks) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • Emerging AI systems in behavioral health and psychiatry use multi-step or multi-agent LLM pipelines for tasks like assessing self-harm risk and screening for depression.
  • We present a statistical framework for multi-agent pipelines structured as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) that provides an alternative to heuristic voting with principled, adaptive decision-making.
  • We evaluate our system on two labeled datasets in behavioral health : the AEGIS 2.0 behavioral health subset (N=161) and a stratified sample of SWMH Reddit posts (N=250).

Why it matters for eval

  • Emerging AI systems in behavioral health and psychiatry use multi-step or multi-agent LLM pipelines for tasks like assessing self-harm risk and screening for depression.
  • We present a statistical framework for multi-agent pipelines structured as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) that provides an alternative to heuristic voting with principled, adaptive decision-making.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Llm As Judge

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: precision, recall