Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

CBT-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Assisting Cognitive Behavior Therapy

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.13218 v2 pith:TAR7JJHA submitted 2024-10-17 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CY

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CY
keywords cognitivecbt-benchclassificationknowledgellmstaskstherapyassistance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

There is a significant gap between patient needs and available mental health support today. In this paper, we aim to thoroughly examine the potential of using Large Language Models (LLMs) to assist professional psychotherapy. To this end, we propose a new benchmark, CBT-BENCH, for the systematic evaluation of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) assistance. We include three levels of tasks in CBT-BENCH: I: Basic CBT knowledge acquisition, with the task of multiple-choice questions; II: Cognitive model understanding, with the tasks of cognitive distortion classification, primary core belief classification, and fine-grained core belief classification; III: Therapeutic response generation, with the task of generating responses to patient speech in CBT therapy sessions. These tasks encompass key aspects of CBT that could potentially be enhanced through AI assistance, while also outlining a hierarchy of capability requirements, ranging from basic knowledge recitation to engaging in real therapeutic conversations. We evaluated representative LLMs on our benchmark. Experimental results indicate that while LLMs perform well in reciting CBT knowledge, they fall short in complex real-world scenarios requiring deep analysis of patients' cognitive structures and generating effective responses, suggesting potential future work.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Where do LLMs Fall Short in CBT-Guided Affective Reasoning?

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    CBT knowledge alone does not change LLM therapeutic strategy; MCoT guidance yields only ~1.2–1.3% Protocol Leverage Force and models stay biased toward Validation & Reflection.

Pith tools