Title: STELLA: Safety Testing Engine for Large Language Assistants
Perlis, R. H.; Bin Adil, A.; Dobyns, K.
Show abstract
BackgroundAssistants incorporating large language models are increasingly applied in the context of health care, where they represent a promising means of expanding access to care. However, there is growing recognition of the risks that these chatbots may fail to respond appropriately to individuals in crisis, and may adversely affect mental health in some circumstances. MethodsWe developed and implemented an automated system for assessing voice or text AI assistant response to users across a range of health scenarios. This set of tools incorporates simulated users with a specified set of characteristics; scenarios in which they interact with a chatbot over multiple rounds; and designs that allow multiple cohorts to be compared. Study designs including simulated randomized trials can be generated via natural language prompts. Chatbot session transcripts are then quantified in terms of safety, efficacy, and user engagement according to prespecified rubrics and exemplars with an ensemble of judging language models, allowing specific exchanges to be flagged for manual review. To illustrate this approach, we assessed 10 safety scenarios in 11 frontier language model chatbots, including Claude Opus 4.5, ChatGPT-5.2, and Gemini 3, using 5 personas, each followed over 10 exchanges, with a subset assessed for an additional 5 personas. ResultsTotal proportion of responses flagged for possible harmful content ranged from 3.2% (95% CI 2.0-5.1%) for GPT 5.2 to 34.0% (95% CI 30.0-38.3%) for Grok-4.1-fast-non-reasoning. Total proportion of responses flagged for failing to provide beneficial content ranged from 19.6% (95% CI 16.4-23.3%) for GPT 5.2 to 66.0% (95% CI 61.7-70.0%) for Grok-4.1-fast-reasoning. In aggregate, proportion of unsafe content increased across turns - for failure to provide beneficial content, by 0.7% per turn (95% CI 0.3%-1.1%). ConclusionA simulation-based test harness can facilitate the rapid characterization and comparison of large language model assistant performance according to standardized rubrics. Existing frontier models vary substantially on these metrics. Simulation strategies such as this one may accelerate efforts to ensure that chatbots yield benefit rather than harm to users who seek to apply them to address mental health and well-being.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Listening to mental health crisis needs at scale: using Natural Language Processing to understand and evaluate a mental health crisis text messaging service 94%
- AI chatbots not yet ready for clinical use 92%
- Precision Digital Intervention for Depression Based on Social Rhythm Principles Adds Significantly to Outpatient Treatment 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Combining AI and human support in mental health: a digital intervention with comparable effectiveness to human-delivered care 92%
- Tracking private WhatsApp discourse about COVID-19: A longitudinal infodemiology study in Singapore 91%
- Virtual health care for community management of patients with COVID-19. 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating Anti-LGBTQIA+ Medical Bias in Large Language Models 92%
- Natural language processing to evaluate texting conversations between patients and healthcare providers during COVID-19 Home-Based Care in Rwanda at scale 92%
- Collaborative intelligence in AI: Evaluating the performance of a council of AIs on the USMLE 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.