analiza aiqbench
This research investigates the nuanced impact of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) on single-turn mental-health question answering, demonstrating that unconditional retrieval can degrade response quality and introduce safety risks. The authors propose a selective retrieval policy that activates external knowledge only when specific psychoeducational or coping needs are detected, thereby preserving the model's inherent safety while improving grounding where necessary. This work highlights critical trade-offs in deploying RAG systems for high-stakes domains like mental health support.
When Retrieval Helps: Selective Retrieval for Single-Turn Mental-Health QA
arXiv:2609.03454v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can improve the specificity and grounding of large language model responses, but its effect is not uniformly beneficial in single-turn mental-health question answering, where user queries often combine emotional distress, treatment concerns, and safety-sensitive needs. We study when retrieval helps or hurts mental-health QA, and whether a lightweight selective retrieval policy can better control this trade-off. We operationalize retrieval need using three draft-conditioned utility dimensions: psychoeducational need, coping need, and response specificity, together with a rule-based safety trigger. Following psychotherapy-grounded RAG systems such as coTherapist, we construct a compact and controllable guideline corpus comprising coping-strategy, psychoeducational, and safety resources. We fine-tune an instruction-tuned generator on MentalChat16K using QLoRA and compare Closed-book, Always Retrieval, and Selective Retrieval settings on CounselBench-Eval and CounselBench-Adv. Experiments show that retrieval is not uniformly beneficial in this domain. Always Retrieval improves specificity but lowers overall quality and introduces additional safety-sensitive failures. Selective Retrieval preserves closed-book behavior for low-need cases while avoiding the additional degradation caused by unconditional retrieval, supporting the view that retrieval activation is a safety-sensitive control decision.
Abstract:Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can improve the specificity and grounding of large language model responses, but its effect is not uniformly beneficial in single-turn mental-health question answering, where user queries often combine emotional distress, treatment concerns, and safety-sensitive needs. We study when retrieval helps or hurts mental-health QA, and whether a lightweight selective retrieval policy can better control this trade-off. We operationalize retrieval need using three draft-conditioned utility dimensions: psychoeducational need, coping need, and response specificity, together with a rule-based safety trigger. Following psychotherapy-grounded RAG systems such as coTherapist, we construct a compact and controllable guideline corpus comprising coping-strategy, psychoeducational, and safety resources. We fine-tune an instruction-tuned generator on MentalChat16K using QLoRA and compare Closed-book, Always Retrieval, and Selective Retrieval settings on CounselBench-Eval and CounselBench-Adv. Experiments show that retrieval is not uniformly beneficial in this domain. Always Retrieval improves specificity but lowers overall quality and introduces additional safety-sensitive failures. Selective Retrieval preserves closed-book behavior for low-need cases while avoiding the additional degradation caused by unconditional retrieval, supporting the view that retrieval activation is a safety-sensitive control decision.
8 pages, 3 figures. Presented at the KDD 2026 Undergraduate Consortium
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Information Retrieval (cs.IR)
arXiv:2609.03454 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.03454v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.03454 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 285 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Building trust in AI agents: A production-ready evaluation framework with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · 16 oct. 2026

Presentation: What 25 Trillion Tokens Reveal about How Developers Actually Adopt AI Agents
InfoQ · 15 oct. 2026

Automated Reasoning policy refinement in Amazon Bedrock
AWS · 3 aug. 2026

2026.10: You are here 📍
Home Assistant · 7 oct. 2026