mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

DelusionEval: Measuring Delusion-Linked Behaviors in AI Chatbots

arXiv 2608.05004 ↗First posted 5 Aug 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Mental health professionals have raised concerns about risks of psychological harm from interaction with large language models (LLMs), including "delusional spirals" in which concerning human and LLM behaviors reinforce each other over time. With growing public use of LLM-powered chatbots, there is an urgent need to build evaluations grounded in real-world episodes of psychological harm experienced by users. We developed DelusionEval, an evaluation protocol that tests a model's tendencies to exhibit behaviors linked to promoting user delusions. We prompt each model with 589 unique conversation histories from 18 participants, comprising 12,591 messages from users who experienced delusions and psychological harm. We find that the tendency of an evaluated LLM to exhibit delusion-linked behavior does not reliably correlate with model size, release date, or the presence of test-time reasoning. However, extending the context of prior messages substantially increases rates of delusion-linked behaviors, providing evidence for the importance of context in LLM safety evaluation. For example, the rate of failing to discourage self-harm when the user expresses suicidal ideation increases from 30.0% to 41.1% when an additional 350 messages are prepended to the conversation history. All model families (e.g., GPT, Claude) exhibit substantial rates of delusion-linked behaviors. Within families, later, larger, or higher-reasoning models are not uniformly better across all behavior categories. Our results raise concerns regarding the potential psychological impact of LLMs and the need for more rigorous studies of real-world human-AI interaction.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Aug 2026.

Builds on

26 of 60 references.

References · 26

  1. 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 1,040
  2. 2025ELEPHANT: Measuring and understanding social sycophancy in LLMscited by 129
  3. 2025Expressing stigma and inappropriate responses prevents LLMs from safely replacing mental health providerscited by 69
  4. 2025Accumulating Context Changes the Beliefs of Language Modelscited by 28
  5. 2026Characterizing Delusional Spirals through Human-LLM Chat Logscited by 23
  6. 2025EmoAgent: Assessing and Safeguarding Human-AI Interaction for Mental Health Safetycited by 21
  7. 2025Training language models to be warm and empathetic makes them less reliable and more sycophanticcited by 21
  8. 2025Neural steering vectors reveal dose and exposure-dependent impacts of human-AI relationshipscited by 21
  9. 2026Sycophantic Chatbots Cause Delusional Spiraling, Even in Ideal Bayesianscited by 21
  10. 2025When Can We Trust LLMs in Mental Health? Large-Scale Benchmarks for Reliable LLM Evaluationcited by 19
  11. 2025Technological folie `a deux: Feedback Loops Between AI Chatbots and Mental Illnesscited by 15
  12. 2025Emotional Manipulation by AI Companionscited by 15
14 more
  1. 2025MindEval: Benchmarking Language Models on Multi-turn Mental Health Supportcited by 10
  2. 2025CRADLE Bench: A Clinician-Annotated Benchmark for Multi-Faceted Mental Health Crisis and Safety Risk Detectioncited by 8
  3. 2025Digital Companionship: Overlapping Uses of AI Companions and AI Assistantscited by 7
  4. 2025LLM Content Moderation and User Satisfaction: Evidence from Response Refusals in Chatbot Arenacited by 6
  5. 2026LLM Spirals of Delusion: A Benchmarking Audit Study of AI Chatbot Interfacescited by 6
  6. 2025MindBenchAI: An Actionable Platform to Evaluate the Profile and Performance of Large Language Models in a Mental Healthcare Contextcited by 5
  7. 2025VERA-MH Concept Papercited by 4
  8. 2025Mental Models of Autonomy and Sentience Shape Reactions to AIcited by 3
  9. 2025How Tech Workers Contend with Hazards of Humanlikeness in Generative AIcited by 3
  10. 2026LLMs can persuade only psychologically susceptible humans on societal issues, via trust in AI and emotional appeals, amid logical fallaciescited by 3
  11. 2026The Dynamics of Delusion: Modeling Bidirectional False Belief Amplification in Human-Chatbot Dialoguecited by 3
  12. 2026Examining Risks Through a Characterization of the AI Companion Application Ecosystem: A Stratified Sample from the Apple App Store and Google Play Storecited by 2
  13. 2026Single-turn emergency psychiatric triage across 15 frontier AI chatbotscited by 2
  14. 2026Lost in Delusion: Examining LLM Safety Under User Delusions and Distresscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Building Trust in Mental Health Chatbots: Safety Metrics and LLM-Based Evaluation Tools
  2. 2026Assessing Risks of Large Language Models in Mental Health Support: A Framework for Automated Clinical AI Red Teaming
  3. 2025Demo: Statistically Significant Results On Biases and Errors of LLMs Do Not Guarantee Generalizable Results
  4. 2025Independent Clinical Evaluation of General-Purpose LLM Responses to Signals of Suicide Risk
  5. 2026Automated Detection and Classification of Delusion-related Content in Naturalistic Audio Diaries Using Multi-Agent Language Models
  6. 2026Beyond Simulations: What 20,000 Real Conversations Reveal About Mental Health AI Safety
  7. 2025Delusions of Large Language Models
  8. 2026One Year Later...The Harms Persist, But So Do We!