Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2602.08121

Initial Risk Probing and Feasibility Testing of Glow: a Generative AI-Powered Dialectical Behavior Therapy Skills Coach for Substance Use Recovery and HIV Prevention

Liying Wang·Madison Lee·Yunzhang Jiang·Steven Chen·Kewei Sha·Yunhe Feng·Frank Wong·Lisa Hightow-Weidman·Weichao Yuwen
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Background: HIV and substance use represent interacting epidemics with shared psychological drivers - impulsivity and maladaptive coping. Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) targets these mechanisms but faces scalability challenges. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) offers potential for delivering personalized DBT coaching at scale, yet rapid development has outpaced safety infrastructure. Methods: We developed Glow, a GenAI-powered DBT skills coach delivering chain and solution analysis for individuals at risk for HIV and substance use. In partnership with a Los Angeles community health organization, we conducted usability testing with clinical staff (n=6) and individuals with lived experience (n=28). Using the Helpful, Honest, and Harmless (HHH) framework, we employed user-driven adversarial testing wherein participants identified target behaviors and generated contextually realistic risk probes. We evaluated safety performance across 37 risk probe interactions. Results: Glow appropriately handled 73% of risk probes, but performance varied by agent. The solution analysis agent demonstrated 90% appropriate handling versus 44% for the chain analysis agent. Safety failures clustered around encouraging substance use and normalizing harmful behaviors. The chain analysis agent fell into an "empathy trap," providing validation that reinforced maladaptive beliefs. Additionally, 27 instances of DBT skill misinformation were identified. Conclusions: This study provides the first systematic safety evaluation of GenAI-delivered DBT coaching for HIV and substance use risk reduction. Findings reveal vulnerabilities requiring mitigation before clinical trials. The HHH framework and user-driven adversarial testing offer replicable methods for evaluating GenAI mental health interventions.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Liying Wang, Madison Lee, Yunzhang Jiang, Steven Chen, Kewei Sha, Yunhe Feng, Frank Wong, Lisa Hightow-Weidman, Weichao Yuwen. 2026-02-08. Initial Risk Probing and Feasibility Testing of Glow: a Generative AI-Powered Dialectical Behavior Therapy Skills Coach for Substance Use Recovery and HIV Prevention. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.08121

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗