Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

Multilingual LLMs exhibit systematic biases in mental health evaluations where Chinese prompts trigger higher stigma scores and under-estimate depression severity compared to English inputs. This divergence underscores that aggregate performance metrics are insufficient for socially sensitive applications, necessitating rigorous cross-lingual validation of evaluative standards. Developers deploying multilingual models in healthcare must account for how prompt language alters downstream decision-making and stigma detection.
Sources coveringarXiv, Effective Altruism Forum, LessWrong, Quantum Frontiers
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Language Shapes Mental Health Evaluations in Large Language Models

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2603.06910v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Multilingual large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in socially sensitive mental health contexts, including support chatbots, screening, and content moderation. This raises a reliability question: do semantically equivalent mental health inputs elicit comparable evaluations across languages, or systematic shifts consistent with language-associated social and cultural contexts? We examine this question in an English-Chinese setting with GPT-4o and Qwen3-32B using a two-level framework: construct-level evaluative orientation, measured by psychometric stigma instruments, and decision-level behavior, measured by binary stigma detection and four-class depression severity classification. Across instruments and models, Chinese prompts elicit higher stigma-related scores than English prompts. At the decision level, Chinese prompts reduce sensitivity to stigmatizing content and produce more conservative depression severity judgments, leading to more under-estimation errors. These findings show that prompt language can shift both evaluative orientation and downstream behavior in LLM-based mental health evaluation. They highlight the need to evaluate multilingual LLMs not only for aggregate performance, but also for whether they apply comparable evaluative standards across languages in socially sensitive domains.

Abstract:Multilingual large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in socially sensitive mental health contexts, including support chatbots, screening, and content moderation. This raises a reliability question: do semantically equivalent mental health inputs elicit comparable evaluations across languages, or systematic shifts consistent with language-associated social and cultural contexts? We examine this question in an English-Chinese setting with GPT-4o and Qwen3-32B using a two-level framework: construct-level evaluative orientation, measured by psychometric stigma instruments, and decision-level behavior, measured by binary stigma detection and four-class depression severity classification. Across instruments and models, Chinese prompts elicit higher stigma-related scores than English prompts. At the decision level, Chinese prompts reduce sensitivity to stigmatizing content and produce more conservative depression severity judgments, leading to more under-estimation errors. These findings show that prompt language can shift both evaluative orientation and downstream behavior in LLM-based mental health evaluation. They highlight the need to evaluate multilingual LLMs not only for aggregate performance, but also for whether they apply comparable evaluative standards across languages in socially sensitive domains.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2603.06910 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2603.06910v2 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.06910 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 260 words

Related coverage