What it measures

106 clinician-written multi-turn scenarios (32,555 conversations) testing chatbot safeguarding, clinical boundary adherence, and attachment risks with teens aged 13–17.

Reading the measurement

Accuracy is only part of the picture. Inspect unsupported answers, abstentions, language coverage and the evidence available to the model. A confident response can still be wrong, and a broad average can hide a specialist gap.

Published evaluation

The linked publication documents the task and scoring procedure. Model results retain the source’s evaluation setting, native score units and available uncertainty.

Where this fits in an evaluation suite

Read accuracy together with error and abstention rates. Domain averages can hide language gaps, specialist failures, and poorly calibrated confidence.

Start with a capability hypothesis, then choose a second test with a different failure mode. Keep the checkpoint, reasoning effort, agent tools, sampling policy, and scoring procedure fixed when measuring a training intervention. Record failures and missing outputs in the denominator.

A reproducible comparison

Record the source publication, benchmark version, scoring units, denominator, tool access and attempt budget. Preserve uncertainty and distinguish developer-reported results from independent evaluations.

Publish the exact run configuration, item coverage, score units, and available uncertainty. If a source supplies only an aggregate or a single run, preserve that limit. A new model name or a rounded score alone does not establish a capability improvement.

PRIMARY EVIDENCE & FURTHER READING

  1. SAFE-Teen: Teen Mental Health & Safety | Vals AI A conversation branches after the chatbot turns down a request — evaluation methodology and results ↗

    Vals AI · 2026

Reviewed 2026-10-26. Explanation and interpretation by RLTasks. Benchmark ownership remains with its original authors.