Abstract
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can improve the specificity and grounding of large language model responses, but its effect is not uniformly beneficial in single-turn mental-health question answering, where user queries often combine emotional distress, treatment concerns, and safety-sensitive needs. We study when retrieval helps or hurts mental-health QA, and whether a lightweight selective retrieval policy can better control this trade-off. We operationalize retrieval need using three draft-conditioned utility dimensions: psychoeducational need, coping need, and response specificity, together with a rule-based safety trigger. Following psychotherapy-grounded RAG systems such as coTherapist, we construct a compact and controllable guideline corpus comprising coping-strategy, psychoeducational, and safety resources. We fine-tune an instruction-tuned generator on MentalChat16K using QLoRA and compare Closed-book, Always Retrieval, and Selective Retrieval settings on CounselBench-Eval and CounselBench-Adv. Experiments show that retrieval is not uniformly beneficial in this domain. Always Retrieval improves specificity but lowers overall quality and introduces additional safety-sensitive failures. Selective Retrieval preserves closed-book behavior for low-need cases while avoiding the additional degradation caused by unconditional retrieval, supporting the view that retrieval activation is a safety-sensitive control decision.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.03454
