Mental-health reasoning with large language models (LLMs) is an evidence-constrained judgment problem: models must transform limited, subjective, and often ambiguous evidence into interpretations, decisions, or claims whose specificity, certainty, severity, and actionability remain warranted. Existing benchmarks mainly evaluate specific clinical roles or final answers, leaving the reliability of explicit reasoning trajectories under-specified. We introduce MiraMind, a unified benchmark spanning six task families and 13 datasets across appraisal, diagnosis, intervention, abstraction, and verification. MiraMind evaluates both task outcomes and the trajectories connecting evidence to judgment through usability, logical structure, and informational contribution. Evaluating 20 LLMs reveals a restraint gap, in which the specificity or certainty of model judgments exceeds what limited evidence supports. We further train Mindora, an 8B model that targets evidence-to-judgment transitions through hard-case supervision, structured trajectory rewriting, and consistency-aware optimization. Mindora achieves the best average rank on MiraMind, improves over its backbone across all six task families, and produces more balanced reasoning trajectories. These results show that MiraMind can expose shared restraint failures and evaluate whether targeted post-training improves evidence-constrained mental-health reasoning.

翻译：暂无翻译