Detecting mental health crisis situations such as suicide ideation, rape, domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual harassment is a critical yet underexplored challenge for language models. When such situations arise during user–model interactions, models must reliably flag them, as failure to do so can have serious consequences. In this work, we introduce CRADLE BENCH, a benchmark for multi-faceted crisis detection. Unlike previous efforts that focus on a limited set of crisis types, our benchmark covers seven types defined in line with clinical standards and is the first to incorporate temporal labels. Our benchmark provides 600 clinician-annotated evaluation examples and 420 development examples, together with a training corpus of around 4K examples automatically labeled using a majority-vote ensemble of multiple language models, which significantly outperforms single-model annotation. We further fine-tune six crisis detection models on subsets defined by consensus and unanimous ensemble agreement, providing complementary models trained under different agreement criteria.Content warning: This paper discusses sensitive topics such as suicide ideation, self-harm, rape, domestic violence, and child abuse.

Evaluating generative models with open-ended generation is challenging due to inconsistencies in response formats. Multiple-choice (MC) evaluation mitigates this issue, but generating high-quality distractors is time-consuming and labor-intensive. We introduce D-GEN, the first open-source distractor generator model that transforms open-ended data into an MC format. To evaluate distractor quality, we propose two novel methods: 1) ranking alignment, ensuring generated distractors retain the discriminatory power of ground-truth distractors, and 2) entropy analysis, comparing model confidence distributions. Our results show that D-GEN preserves ranking consistency (Spearman’s 𝜌 0.99, Kendall’s 𝜏 0.94) and closely matches the entropy distribution of ground-truth distractors. Human evaluation further confirms the fluency, coherence, distractiveness, and incorrectness. Our work advances robust and efficient distractor generation with automated evaluation, setting a new standard for MC evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are expected to provide helpful and harmless responses, yet they often exhibit sycophancy—conforming to user beliefs regardless of factual accuracy or ethical soundness. Prior research on sycophancy has primarily focused on single-turn factual correctness, overlooking the dynamics of real-world interactions. In this work, we introduce SYCON Bench (SYcophantic CONformity benchmark), a novel evaluation suite that assesses sycophantic behavior in multi-turn, free-form conversational settings. Our benchmark measures how quickly a model conforms to the user (Turn of Flip) and how frequently it shifts its stance under sustained user pressure (Number of Flip). Applying SYCON Bench to 17 LLMs across three real-world scenarios, we find that sycophancy remains a prevalent failure mode. Our analysis shows that alignment tuning amplifies sycophantic behavior, whereas model scaling and reasoning optimization strengthen the model’s ability to resist undesirable user views. Reasoning models generally outperform instruction-tuned models but often fail when they over-index on logical exposition instead of directly addressing the user’s underlying beliefs. Finally, we evaluate four additional prompting strategies and demonstrate that adopting a third-person perspective reduces sycophancy by up to 63.8% in debate scenario.