Psychiatry-Bench: A Multi-Task Benchmark for LLMs in Psychiatry

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09711v1
• Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2025 20:57:24 GMT
• Title: Psychiatry-Bench: A Multi-Task Benchmark for LLMs in Psychiatry
• Authors: Aya E. Fouda, Abdelrahamn A. Hassan, Radwa J. Hanafy, Mohammed E. Fouda,
• Abstract summary: PsychiatryBench is a rigorously curated benchmark grounded exclusively in expert-validated psychiatric textbooks and casebooks.<n> PsychiatryBench comprises eleven distinct question-answering tasks ranging from diagnostic reasoning and treatment planning to longitudinal follow-up, management planning, clinical approach, sequential case analysis, and multiple-choice/extended matching formats totaling over 5,300 expert-annotated items.
• Score: 1.2879523047871226
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) hold great promise in enhancing psychiatric practice, from improving diagnostic accuracy to streamlining clinical documentation and therapeutic support. However, existing evaluation resources heavily rely on small clinical interview corpora, social media posts, or synthetic dialogues, which limits their clinical validity and fails to capture the full complexity of psychiatric reasoning. In this work, we introduce PsychiatryBench, a rigorously curated benchmark grounded exclusively in authoritative, expert-validated psychiatric textbooks and casebooks. PsychiatryBench comprises eleven distinct question-answering tasks ranging from diagnostic reasoning and treatment planning to longitudinal follow-up, management planning, clinical approach, sequential case analysis, and multiple-choice/extended matching formats totaling over 5,300 expert-annotated items. We evaluate a diverse set of frontier LLMs (including Google Gemini, DeepSeek, LLaMA 3, and QWQ-32) alongside leading open-source medical models (e.g., OpenBiloLLM, MedGemma) using both conventional metrics and an "LLM-as-judge" similarity scoring framework. Our results reveal substantial gaps in clinical consistency and safety, particularly in multi-turn follow-up and management tasks, underscoring the need for specialized model tuning and more robust evaluation paradigms. PsychiatryBench offers a modular, extensible platform for benchmarking and improving LLM performance in high-stakes mental health applications.

Related papers

• MIND: Unified Inquiry and Diagnosis RL with Criteria Grounded Clinical Supports for Psychiatric Consultation [5.601620793903095]
  We propose MIND, a unified inquiry--diagnosis reinforcement learning framework for psychiatric consultation.<n>Specifically, we build a Criteria-Grounded Psychiatric Reasoning Bank (PRB) that summarizes dialogue context into clinical retrieval states.<n>Building on this foundation, MIND enforces explicit clinical reasoning with rubric-based process rewards to provide fine-grained supervision over intermediate decision steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-04T03:05:38Z)
• LingxiDiagBench: A Multi-Agent Framework for Benchmarking LLMs in Chinese Psychiatric Consultation and Diagnosis [14.82377002030236]
  Mental disorders are highly prevalent worldwide.<n>The shortage of psychiatrists and the inherent subjectivity of interview-based diagnosis create substantial barriers to timely and consistent mental-health assessment.<n>We present LingxiDiagBench, a large-scale multi-agent benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T03:46:05Z)
• MMedExpert-R1: Strengthening Multimodal Medical Reasoning via Domain-Specific Adaptation and Clinical Guideline Reinforcement [63.82954136824963]
  Medical Vision-Language Models excel at perception tasks with complex clinical reasoning required in real-world scenarios.<n>We propose a novel reasoning MedVLM that addresses these challenges through domain-specific adaptation and guideline reinforcement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T02:32:07Z)
• MedDialogRubrics: A Comprehensive Benchmark and Evaluation Framework for Multi-turn Medical Consultations in Large Language Models [15.91764739198419]
  We present MedDialogRubrics, a novel benchmark comprising 5,200 synthetically constructed patient cases and over 60,000 fine-grained evaluation rubrics.<n>Our framework employs a multi-agent system to synthesize realistic patient records and chief complaints without accessing real-world electronic health records.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T13:56:33Z)
• Simulating Viva Voce Examinations to Evaluate Clinical Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.91760712805404]
  We introduce VivaBench, a benchmark for evaluating sequential clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our dataset consists of 1762 physician-curated clinical vignettes structured as interactive scenarios that simulate a (oral) examination in medical training.<n>Our analysis identified several failure modes that mirror common cognitive errors in clinical practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T16:24:35Z)
• Med-RewardBench: Benchmarking Reward Models and Judges for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models [57.73472878679636]
  We introduce Med-RewardBench, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate medical reward models and judges.<n>Med-RewardBench features a multimodal dataset spanning 13 organ systems and 8 clinical departments, with 1,026 expert-annotated cases.<n>A rigorous three-step process ensures high-quality evaluation data across six clinically critical dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:58:39Z)
• LLMEval-Med: A Real-world Clinical Benchmark for Medical LLMs with Physician Validation [58.25892575437433]
  evaluating large language models (LLMs) in medicine is crucial because medical applications require high accuracy with little room for error.<n>We present LLMEval-Med, a new benchmark covering five core medical areas, including 2,996 questions created from real-world electronic health records and expert-designed clinical scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T15:43:14Z)
• MoodAngels: A Retrieval-augmented Multi-agent Framework for Psychiatry Diagnosis [58.67342568632529]
  MoodAngels is the first specialized multi-agent framework for mood disorder diagnosis.<n>MoodSyn is an open-source dataset of 1,173 synthetic psychiatric cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T09:18:25Z)
• Beyond Empathy: Integrating Diagnostic and Therapeutic Reasoning with Large Language Models for Mental Health Counseling [17.809187205107232]
  PsyLLM is a large language model designed to integrate diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning for mental health counseling.<n>This pipeline processes real-world mental health posts and generates multi-turn dialogue structures.<n> Rigorous multi-dimensional filtering ensures the generation of high-quality, clinically aligned dialogue data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T16:24:49Z)
• MedGUIDE: Benchmarking Clinical Decision-Making in Large Language Models [10.46932473088646]
  We introduce MedGUIDE, a new benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on their ability to make guideline-consistent clinical decisions.<n> MedGUIDE is constructed from 55 curated NCCN decision trees across 17 cancer types.<n>We apply a two-stage quality selection process, combining expert-labeled reward models and LLM-as-a-judge ensembles across ten clinical and linguistic criteria, to select 7,747 high-quality samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T18:21:52Z)
• Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases [48.87360916431396]
  We introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references.<n>We propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey.<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T18:35:39Z)
• PsychBench: A comprehensive and professional benchmark for evaluating the performance of LLM-assisted psychiatric clinical practice [20.166682569070073]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) offer potential solutions to address problems such as shortage of medical resources and low diagnostic consistency in psychiatric clinical practice.<n>We propose a benchmarking system, PsychBench, to evaluate the practical performance of LLMs in psychiatric clinical settings.<n>We show that while existing models demonstrate significant potential, they are not yet adequate as decision-making tools in psychiatric clinical practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T12:17:41Z)
• Large Language Models in the Clinic: A Comprehensive Benchmark [63.21278434331952]
  We build a benchmark ClinicBench to better understand large language models (LLMs) in the clinic. We first collect eleven existing datasets covering diverse clinical language generation, understanding, and reasoning tasks. We then construct six novel datasets and clinical tasks that are complex but common in real-world practice. We conduct an extensive evaluation of twenty-two LLMs under both zero-shot and few-shot settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-25T15:51:06Z)
• A Spectrum Evaluation Benchmark for Medical Multi-Modal Large Language Models [57.88111980149541]
  We introduce Asclepius, a novel Med-MLLM benchmark that assesses Med-MLLMs in terms of distinct medical specialties and different diagnostic capacities.<n>Grounded in 3 proposed core principles, Asclepius ensures a comprehensive evaluation by encompassing 15 medical specialties.<n>We also provide an in-depth analysis of 6 Med-MLLMs and compare them with 3 human specialists.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T08:04:23Z)
• Emulating Human Cognitive Processes for Expert-Level Medical Question-Answering with Large Language Models [0.23463422965432823]
  BooksMed is a novel framework based on a Large Language Model (LLM) It emulates human cognitive processes to deliver evidence-based and reliable responses. We present ExpertMedQA, a benchmark comprised of open-ended, expert-level clinical questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T13:39:26Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.