MindEval2
Models support simulated patients from MindSim, a tool-using harness with detailed profiles. Psychologist-written rubrics (MHQR) replace Likert scales for scoring.
New patient simulator and new rubrics, so scores do not compare with MindEval. Maker attribution follows the first version.
- Made by
- Sword Health
- Released
- October 2026
- Kind
- Medicine
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Open-ended
In the authors’ words
With people increasingly turning to AI chatbots for mental health support, the need to evaluate these tools is becoming more pressing. Recent benchmarks attempt to mimic a realistic setting by simulating multi-turn interactions with synthetic patients and evaluating them with an LLM-as-a-judge. However, the usefulness of these methods is limited because simulated patients can be overly forthcoming and self-reflective, and judgments typically involve opaque Likert scales with unclear practical utility. To bridge these gaps, we introduce MindEval2, an evaluation framework that consists of two components: Mental Health Quality Rubrics (MHQR), for evaluation, and MindSim, for patient simulation. For MHQR, we collaborate with PhD-level psychologists to develop a set of rubrics that break down response quality into explicit operational criteria that are more interpretable and actionable than existing evaluation taxonomies. MindSim, in turn, is an LLM harness that combines carefully-designed patient profiles with tools, enabling more varied, challenging, and realistic interactions than existing baselines. The harness also contains a memory component that is updated between each interaction, enabling MindEval2 to model the longitudinal aspect of mental health. We evaluate 18 proprietary and open-weight models on MindEval2, finding that while frontier models have largely improved on issues related to surface level quality and boundaries, guidance calibration remains the dominant failure mode across all models, accounting for most of the quality gap.
No scores here yet
No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for MindEval2 yet.
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
Versions
More in Law, finance and medicine
- MedXpertQA-MM In use Models answer expert-level medical exam questions that combine images with clinical records and test results. Scoring is accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 80.4%
- HealthBench Professional In use 525 physician-authored tasks from real clinician chats (care consult, documentation, research) with physician-adjudicated rubrics. Claude Sonnet 5.5 69.2%
- HealthBench In use 5,000 realistic health conversations graded against physician-written rubrics. A length-adjusted variant penalizes verbosity. GPT-5 67.2%
- FinSearchComp In use Agents search the web to fetch live financial data, look up history, and run multi-step investigations, across 635 expert-written questions. Scored by answer accuracy.
Ling-3.1-flash 81.7%
- KBL In use Models answer Korean legal knowledge and reasoning tasks and Korean bar exam questions. It has 7 knowledge tasks, 4 reasoning tasks and 2,510 bar exam items.
Solar Pro 4 77.5%
- KorMedMCQA In use Models answer 7,469 multiple-choice questions from Korean licensing exams for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and dentists, held from 2012 to 2024.
Solar Pro 4 93.2%