Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in the mental health domain, yet it remains unclear how well they capture related biomedical knowledge and how reliably they apply it to clinically salient structured judgments. Here, we present a knowledge-graph (KG)-grounded benchmark for assessing LLMs on mental-health entity recognition, relation judgment, and two-hop reasoning. The benchmark is derived from PrimeKG and comprises nine task families with KG-supported answers and controlled negative options. Experiments across 15 closed- and open-source LLMs reveal a persistent recognition-to-judgment gap: leading models achieve near-ceiling performance on entity typing and on the small relation-typing subset, yet they still struggle with relation prediction and two-hop reasoning. Additionally, short KG-derived snippets benefit some models but degrade performance for others. Moreover, output-format reliability can substantially influence measured performance under constrained multiple-choice settings, highlighting the critical role of response validity in benchmark-based evaluation. MHGraphBench should therefore be interpreted as evaluating agreement with a curated mental-health slice of PrimeKG under a constrained multiple-choice interface, rather than as a direct assessment of real-world clinical safety.

Language models (LMs) are known to suffer from hallucinations and misinformation. Retrieval augmented generation (RAG) that retrieves verifiable information from an external knowledge corpus to complement the parametric knowledge in LMs provides a tangible solution to these problems. However, the generation quality of RAG is highly dependent on the relevance between a user’s query and the retrieved documents. Inaccurate responses may be generated when the query is outside of the scope of knowledge represented in the external knowledge corpus or if the information in the corpus is out-of-date. In this work, we establish a statistical framework that assesses how well a query can be answered by an RAG system by capturing the relevance of knowledge. We introduce an online testing procedure that employs goodness-of-fit (GoF) tests to inspect the relevance of each user query to detect out-of-knowledge queries with low knowledge relevance. Additionally, we develop an offline testing framework that examines a collection of user queries, aiming to detect significant shifts in the query distribution which indicates the knowledge corpus is no longer sufficiently capable of supporting the interests of the users. We demonstrate the capabilities of these strategies through a systematic evaluation on eight question-answering (QA) datasets, the results of which indicate that the new testing framework is an efficient solution to enhance the reliability of existing RAG systems.