Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a novel framework for enhancing therapeutic response generation in mental health support by utilizing multi-dimensional, human-aligned evaluations. The framework consists of TheraJudge, an open-source evaluator trained through preference-based optimization, and TheraAgent, which refines responses based on TheraJudge's evaluations through a coordinated multi-agent approach. Empirical results show that TheraJudge aligns closely with clinician ratings (ICC = 0.87-0.95) and that TheraAgent significantly improves therapeutic quality by +0.43 points in human evaluations, particularly enhancing low-quality responses by +2.45 points with a 94% recovery rate.
Human-aligned evaluation can transform therapeutic response generation, leading to substantial improvements in mental health support quality.
Large language models show promise for mental health support, yet therapeutic quality improves only when evaluation functions as an actionable control signal rather than a passive metric. We introduce a framework that formulates therapeutic response generation as a decision-refinement problem driven by multi-dimensional, human-aligned evaluation. In Stage I, we introduce TheraJudge, an open-source therapeutic evaluator trained via preference-based optimization on human-annotated data to produce reliable judgments across 7 psychological dimensions. In Stage II, we introduce TheraAgent, which operationalizes TheraJudge's evaluations through a coordinated refinement process with specialized Critic, Coach, and Therapist roles that translate evaluative signals into targeted response revisions. Empirically, TheraJudge achieves strong agreement with clinician ratings, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC = 0.87-0.95), surpassing supervised baselines and strong closed-source judges, particularly on critical dimensions such as Safety, Relevance, and Empathy. Acting on these evaluations, TheraAgent yields a +0.43 improvement in human-rated therapeutic quality (on a 5-point scale) under blind evaluation, with 96\% clinician inter-rater reliability. Low-quality responses ($\leq 3$) improve by +2.45 points with a 94\% recovery rate, demonstrating targeted correction of unsafe outputs. Overall, our results indicate that effective alignment of mental-health LLMs stems from acting on human-aligned evaluation, rather than relying solely on stronger generation. We release code at https://github.com/vis-nlp/TheraAlign.
