# Auditing Framing-Sensitive Behavioral Instability in Large Language Models for Mental Health Interactions

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.26982 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.26982/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Probing deception, bias and beliefs, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability.
- Builds on 21 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- Mechanistic interpretability / [Probing deception, bias and beliefs](https://mlsanity.com/mechinterp/probing-deception-bias-and-beliefs/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 21 of 21)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03629/) (2022)
- [Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02483/) (2023)
- [Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01405/) (2023)
- [Steering Llama 2 via Contrastive Activation Addition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06681/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Direction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11717/) (2024)
- [Steering Language Models With Activation Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10248/) (2023)
- [Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.05217/) (2023)
- [Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09251/) (2022)
- [Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.03827/) (2022)
- [Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety -- A Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.14082/) (2024)
- [Explainability for Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.01029/) (2023)
- [Risks from Learned Optimization in Advanced Machine Learning Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.01820/) (2019)
- [Predictability and Surprise in Large Generative Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.07785/) (2022)
- [The Geometry of Refusal in Large Language Models: Concept Cones and Representational Independence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.17420/) (2025)
- [When Truth Is Overridden: Uncovering the Internal Origins of Sycophancy in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.02087/) (2025)
- [Sycophancy Is Not One Thing: Causal Separation of Sycophantic Behaviors in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.21305/) (2025)
- [DeceptionBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for AI Deception Behaviors in Real-world Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.15501/) (2025)
- [A Causal Explainable Guardrails for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.04160/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being integrated into mental health support tools and other psychologically sensitive conversational applications. In such settings, behavioral stability and consistency are important for trustworthy human-AI interaction. However, semantically similar concerns can be presented through different contextual framings, potentially eliciting different model responses. Such framing-sensitive variability may challenge user expectations regarding system behavior and complicate the assessment of AI reliability. While prior studies have primarily examined such effects at the behavioral level, less is known about how framing-related variation is reflected in the internal representations of aligned language models. In this work, we investigate these effects using controlled matched prompts spanning multiple contextual framing conditions across several instruction-tuned model families. Across architectures, framing systematically alters interpretive response tendencies. Layer-wise probing analyses show that behavior-associated information remains decodable throughout transformer depth, with architecture-dependent variation in decoding strength. Moreover, held-out framing probes remained consistently above chance across architectures despite strong lexical baselines. Activation steering experiments further suggest that framing-associated representational directions can partially modulate downstream behavioral outcomes. Finally, these findings indicate that robustness to contextual variation may represent an important consideration when evaluating the consistency and trustworthiness of conversational AI systems deployed in mental-health-oriented interactions.