The increasing use of large language models (LLMs) in mental healthcare raises safety concerns in high-stakes therapeutic interactions. A key challenge is distinguishing therapeutic empathy from maladaptive validation, where supportive responses may inadvertently reinforce harmful beliefs or behaviors in multi-turn conversations. This risk is largely overlooked by existing red-teaming frameworks, which focus mainly on generic harms or optimization-based attacks. To address this gap, we introduce Persona-based Client Simulation Attack (PCSA), the first red-teaming framework that simulates clients in psychological counseling through coherent, persona-driven client dialogues to expose vulnerabilities in psychological safety alignment. Experiments on eight general and mental health-specialized LLMs show that PCSA substantially outperforms four competitive baselines. Perplexity analysis and human inspection further indicate that PCSA generates more natural and realistic dialogues. Our results reveal that current LLMs remain vulnerable to domain-specific adversarial tactics, providing unauthorized medical advice, reinforcing delusions, and implicitly encouraging risky actions.

Large audio-language models (LALMs) increasingly use explicit reasoning traces for complex audio understanding, yet the evaluation of reasoning quality remains underexplored. Although process-level benchmarks for process reward models (PRMs) have advanced reasoning evaluation in text and multi-modal domains, comparable evaluation for audio reasoning remains limited. In this paper, we present AudioProcessBench, a comprehensive benchmark for step-level process error identification in audio reasoning. AudioProcessBench contains diverse reasoning traces generated by 6 audio and omni language models. Each trace is segmented into discrete reasoning steps and annotated with binary step correctness and fine-grained error types. Our benchmark evaluates models under three complementary paradigms: (1) step correctness identification, (2) error-type-conditioned detection for diagnosing audio-specific verifier capacities, and (3) chain-level aggregation, where verifiers select or aggregate among multiple reasoning traces for the same question. This design enables a systematic analysis of whether current models can detect process errors, whether their weaknesses differ across audio-specific error types, and whether process verification translates into improved answer selection. AudioProcessBench provides a testbed for future research on audio reasoning verifiers, process reward models, and reliable omni-modal reasoning.

The increasing integration of large language models (LLMs) into mental health applications necessitates robust frameworks for evaluating professional safety alignment. Current evaluative approaches primarily rely on refusal-based safety signals, which offer limited insight into the nuanced behaviors required in clinical practice. In mental health, clinically inadequate refusals can be perceived as unempathetic and discourage help-seeking. To address this gap, we move beyond refusal-centric metrics and introduce PsychEthicsBench, the first principle-grounded benchmark based on Australian psychology and psychiatry guidelines, designed to evaluate LLMs’ ethical knowledge and behavioral responses through multiple-choice and open-ended tasks with fine-grained ethicality annotations. Empirical results across 14 models reveal that refusal rates are poor indicators of ethical behavior, revealing a significant divergence between safety triggers and clinical appropriateness. Notably, we find that domain-specific fine-tuning can degrade ethical robustness, as several specialized models underperform their base backbones in ethical alignment. PsychEthicsBench provides a foundation for systematic, jurisdiction-aware evaluation of LLMs in mental health, encouraging more responsible development in this domain.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in advice seeking and decision making that may affect social judgements. Despite stigma’s profound effects on people and communities, benchmarks remain scarce. Existing general-domain evaluations typically rely on static prompts and fixed-format tasks, overlooking conversational contexts and audience effects in everyday communication. To address these gaps, we introduce SDARE-Bench, the first scenario-based benchmark evaluating both stigma detection and open-ended response generation in LLMs, comprising 1,138 dyadic queries and 1,388 group dialogues. Empirical results across 8 LLMs consistently demonstrate poor identification of stigma components, especially in group dialogues. In open-ended response generation, stigma expression was substantially higher in group settings than in dyadic, with weaker resistance to stigma and more unrealistic advice. Responses were evaluated using a classifier trained on 1,392 human annotated responses. In constructed group pressure settings, stigma expression rates further increased to a striking average of 97.5%. Our findings identify stigma response as a recurring LLM safety vulnerability, especially in socially complex conversational contexts.