Research / Safety & wellbeing · Child safety
DistressBench tests 25 models on 718 clinician-authored simulated conversations. Across model–conversation results that met every crisis-recognition criterion, 35.3% failed the criterion for directing users towards human help. A separate annex contains 20 long-horizon transcripts.
Why it matters
A useful question for safety testing: after a chatbot recognises distress, does it offer the next step the situation calls for?
Read with care
Preprint, not a verified peer-reviewed publication. English simulations and US-centric criteria do not establish real-world harm rates. Scoring uses a clinician-calibrated LLM panel. Per-turn clinician labels proved unreliable; the separate long-horizon annex uses one fixed assistant path and cannot rank models or establish when failures begin.
What was checked
Version 1 record and selected methods, results and limitations inspected. No independent replication. Checked 2026-10-14.