Skip to content
← Back to explorer

TrustMH-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating the Trustworthiness of Large Language Models in Mental Health

Zixin Xiong, Ziteng Wang, Haotian Fan, Xinjie Zhang, Wenxuan Wang · Mar 3, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

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

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

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

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate significant potential in providing accessible mental health support, their practical deployment raises critical trustworthiness concerns due to the domains high-stakes and safety-sensitive nature. Existing evaluation paradigms for general-purpose LLMs fail to capture mental health-specific requirements, highlighting an urgent need to prioritize and enhance their trustworthiness. To address this, we propose TrustMH-Bench, a holistic framework designed to systematically quantify the trustworthiness of mental health LLMs. By establishing a deep mapping from domain-specific norms to quantitative evaluation metrics, TrustMH-Bench evaluates models across eight core pillars: Reliability, Crisis Identification and Escalation, Safety, Fairness, Privacy, Robustness, Anti-sycophancy, and Ethics. We conduct extensive experiments across six general-purpose LLMs and six specialized mental health models. Experimental results indicate that the evaluated models underperform across various trustworthiness dimensions in mental health scenarios, revealing significant deficiencies. Notably, even generally powerful models (e.g., GPT-5.1) fail to maintain consistently high performance across all dimensions. Consequently, systematically improving the trustworthiness of LLMs has become a critical task. Our data and code are released.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.

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.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 25%

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.

"While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate significant potential in providing accessible mental health support, their practical deployment raises critical trustworthiness concerns due to the domains high-stakes and safety-sensitive nature."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate significant potential in providing accessible mental health support, their practical deployment raises critical trustworthiness concerns due to the domains high-stakes and safety-sensitive nature."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate significant potential in providing accessible mental health support, their practical deployment raises critical trustworthiness concerns due to the domains high-stakes and safety-sensitive nature."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

Trustmh Bench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"To address this, we propose TrustMH-Bench, a holistic framework designed to systematically quantify the trustworthiness of mental health LLMs."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate significant potential in providing accessible mental health support, their practical deployment raises critical trustworthiness concerns due to the domains high-stakes and safety-sensitive nature."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

Trustmh-Bench

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate significant potential in providing accessible mental health support, their practical deployment raises critical trustworthiness concerns due to the domains high-stakes and safety-sensitive nature.

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

Key Takeaways

  • While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate significant potential in providing accessible mental health support, their practical deployment raises critical trustworthiness concerns due to the domains high-stakes and safety-sensitive nature.
  • Existing evaluation paradigms for general-purpose LLMs fail to capture mental health-specific requirements, highlighting an urgent need to prioritize and enhance their trustworthiness.
  • To address this, we propose TrustMH-Bench, a holistic framework designed to systematically quantify the trustworthiness of mental health LLMs.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • 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

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate significant potential in providing accessible mental health support, their practical deployment raises critical trustworthiness concerns due to the domains high-stakes and safety-sensitive…
  • Existing evaluation paradigms for general-purpose LLMs fail to capture mental health-specific requirements, highlighting an urgent need to prioritize and enhance their trustworthiness.
  • To address this, we propose TrustMH-Bench, a holistic framework designed to systematically quantify the trustworthiness of mental health LLMs.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate significant potential in providing accessible mental health support, their practical deployment raises critical trustworthiness concerns due to the domains high-stakes and safety-sensitive…
  • Existing evaluation paradigms for general-purpose LLMs fail to capture mental health-specific requirements, highlighting an urgent need to prioritize and enhance their trustworthiness.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Trustmh-Bench

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.