Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Trust Modeling in Counseling Conversations: A Benchmark Study

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Mental-BART, a compact model fine-tuned on mental-health text, best predicts patient trust on a seven-level ordinal scale in counseling dialogues.

desk verdict A genuinely useful new dataset for trust dynamics in counseling, but the paper's internal inconsistencies—especially the 5-vs-7-class definition—mean the benchmark numbers aren't interpretable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03064 v1 pith:37JOY6RJ submitted 2025-01-06 cs.CL

Aseem Srivastava , Zuhair Hasan Shaik , Tanmoy Chakraborty , Md Shad Akhtar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords trustmodelingtherapeuticbondordinalclassificationcounselingconversationsmentalhealthNLPMENTAL-TRUSTdatasetBenchbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the quality of a counseling session can be tracked by measuring a patient's trust in the therapist, defined as the willingness and openness to disclose sensitive personal material. To make this measurable, it introduces MENTAL-TRUST, a dataset of 212 counseling sessions in which every patient utterance carries one of seven expert-verified ordinal trust levels, together with topic-shift annotations. The authors frame trust prediction as an ordinal classification task and benchmark 14 models under the name TrustBench. Their central finding is that a relatively small, mental-health-tuned model, Mental-BART, reaches 89.03% accuracy and outperforms larger and closed-source models across most metrics. If correct, this gives therapists and AI-assisted counseling tools a concrete way to monitor whether the therapeutic bond is strengthening or weakening during a session.

What carries the argument

The central object is the seven-level ordinal trust scale and its annotation protocol. Trust is defined by three observable textual behaviors: sharing personal, detailed, or sensitive information; opening up about relevant concerns; and staying aligned with the topic of concern. The four anchor levels are least trust (1), low trust (2), building trust (3), and achieved trust (4), with intermediate levels 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5 to absorb ambiguous cases. Conversations are seeded at the neutral midpoint 2.5, and annotators track upward and downward jumps from that point, additionally marking topic shifts. This scale is the mechanism that turns the therapeutic bond from a vague qualitative idea into a prediction target for ordinal classification models.

What would settle it

Have two independent expert teams annotate the same held-out set of counseling sessions using the paper's guidelines and check whether Cohen's kappa stays near the reported 0.77, and additionally compare utterance-level trust labels against a post-session patient-reported trust questionnaire to see whether the ordinal trajectory predicts the questionnaire outcome.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that trust in counseling can be operationalized as a dynamic, moment-by-moment ordinal trajectory visible in patient utterances, and that language models can learn to track this trajectory well enough to assist therapists. MENTAL-TRUST is the paper's evidence for this idea: seven ordinal levels, anchored by least trust, low trust, building trust, and achieved trust, plus intermediate half-levels, annotated through an iterative expert calibration that raised inter-annotator agreement from a Cohen's kappa of 0.22 to 0.77. TrustBench then evaluates 14 models, with the paper reporting that fine-tuned encoder-decoder models, especially Mental-BART, follow trust trajectories most closely while large and closed-source models lag substantially. The authors interpret this as evidence that specialized smaller models capture local, trust-specific textual indicators better than models relying on broad world knowledge.

Load-bearing premise

The dataset assumes that a patient's trust can be read from the text of their utterances and topic alignment alone, without any nonverbal cues, and that expert annotators can rate it consistently; if that assumption fails, the labels and every model comparison are not actually measuring trust.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mental-BART, a mental-health fine-tuned BART, achieves 89.03% accuracy and the best scores on seven of nine metrics, showing that the ordinal trust task is learnable with moderate-size models.
  • Closed-source large models such as GPT-4o and Gemini 1.5 score around 23% accuracy, below even the smallest fine-tuned encoders, suggesting that general-purpose instruction-following does not transfer to fine-grained trust rating.
  • Trust trajectories have a positive bias: positive level changes are about twice as common as negative ones, with average upward steps near +0.5 and downward steps near -1.0, meaning trust builds gradually but can drop sharply.
  • Stable plateaus of about 8 to 9 consecutive utterances are common, indicating that trust levels are not noisy moment-to-moment states but settle into temporary equilibria.
  • Sessions with positive therapeutic outcomes tend to stay on coherent core topics, while negative-outcome sessions feature scattered topics and frequent digressions, linking topic alignment to trust maintenance.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next step the paper does not take is to convert the ordinal scale into a real-time therapist alert, flagging drops of one or more levels as moments to recalibrate the session; the asymmetry between gradual building and sharp drops suggests such alerts would be rare but clinically meaningful.
  • Because the scale is defined purely from text, the same annotation protocol could be tested on multilingual or multimodal sessions where vocal tone and facial expression are available; the paper itself notes the text-only limitation, so this is an extension the authors imply rather than test.
  • The convention of initializing every conversation at trust level 2.5 is a testable assumption: re-annotating a sample with different starting priors, or letting annotators infer an initial level from the first exchanges, would show how much of the reported trajectory statistics depend on that choice.
  • The benchmark uses standard cross-entropy-style losses; an ordinal-aware loss that penalizes larger trust jumps more heavily could plausibly improve models, since the paper's own analysis shows that trust decreases are typically larger than trust increases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MENTAL-TRUST, a dataset of counseling sessions in which patient utterances are annotated with seven ordinal trust levels, and TRUST-BENCH, a benchmark evaluating 14 language models on predicting these levels as an ordinal classification task. The authors report that a fine-tuned Mental-BART model achieves the highest accuracy (89.03%) and that smaller encoder-based models outperform larger decoder-only and closed-source models. They also present trust trajectory and topic analyses, and commit to releasing the dataset.

Significance. If the dataset and benchmark are reliable, the work addresses a meaningful gap in counseling dialogue research: quantifying the therapeutic bond as a dynamic trust trajectory. Strengths include the iterative annotation design with expert involvement (Cohen's Kappa 0.77), the inclusion of half-level trust labels to capture ambiguity, and the systematic comparison across model families. However, several internal inconsistencies currently prevent the results from being taken at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1] Section 5.1 defines the label set as {1,2,3,4,5}, while Section 3.2 and Tables 1 and 5 use seven levels with half-integers (1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4). This discrepancy changes the number of classes, the chance accuracy, and the loss function. The reported accuracies in Table 3 are therefore not clearly attributable to the described 7-level task. The authors must specify the label set actually used for training and evaluation; if the 5-class set was used, they must explain how the half-level labels were collapsed and recompute all metrics accordingly.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4 / Table 2] The dataset size is inconsistently reported. The abstract and Section 3 state 212 counseling sessions and 12.9K utterances, while Section 4 and Table 2 sum to 167 sessions and 10,172 utterances (116+17+34 sessions; 6,902+949+2,321 utterances). These mismatches make the resource description ambiguous and undermine the reproducibility of the benchmark split.
  3. [Section 3.3] Section 3.3 reports only a single overall Cohen's Kappa (0.77) for the final annotation iteration. It does not state how many annotators labeled each session, how disagreements were adjudicated, or what per-label or per-level agreement was. The trajectory-level analyses in Table 4 and Figure 4 assume that the labels are reliable at every level; without per-level reliability evidence, the validity of these analyses is not established.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Section 6.2] The decision to initialize every conversation at trust level 2.5 (Section 3.2) is a modeling assumption that feeds directly into the trajectory statistics in Table 4 and the outcome classification in Section 6.2, where positive and negative outcomes are defined relative to the initial trust level. Because all trajectories are anchored at the same neutral point, the reported asymmetry between positive and negative jumps may be an artifact of this initialization rather than a property of trust dynamics. The authors should either justify this anchor with prior data or analyze sensitivity to it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption refers to Mental-BART as a decoder-only model, but Table 3 and Section 5.2 classify it as an encoder-decoder model; this makes the trajectory comparison figure misleading.
  2. [References] The references for Llama 3.1 and Phi-3.5 are incomplete: they appear as 'et al., 2024a' and 'et al., 2024b' without author names.
  3. [Section 5.2] The subsection heading contains a typo: 'Enoder-only Methods' should be 'Encoder-only Methods'.
  4. [Section 4] The text states that validation utterances are slightly longer (65.21 tokens) than training (56.56) and test (52.71), but the table also shows that the average utterance length per speaker is higher for validation; the current phrasing is acceptable but should be checked for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the benchmark is a standard supervised evaluation whose labels come from annotation guidelines rather than from the models' outputs.

full rationale

MENTAL-TRUST is constructed by manual annotation following explicit guidelines (Section 3.2), refined through an iterative expert process with reported inter-annotator agreement (Section 3.3). The models in TrustBench are trained and evaluated against these annotations on held-out splits, so the central claim (Mental-BART at 89.03 accuracy, Table 3) is an empirical benchmark result, not a quantity fitted from or defined by the same model outputs. Trust is operationalized through the annotation scheme, and the initial value of 2.5 and the half-level granularity are transparent annotation assumptions; trajectory statistics inherit these choices, but this is operationalization rather than a hidden reduction of a prediction to its input. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Malhotra et al. 2022 for the source HOPE dataset, and several Srivastava et al. related-work entries) are used for data provenance and related work, not as load-bearing justification of the trust construct or of the model ranking. The inconsistency between the 5-class task formulation in Section 5.1 and the 7-level labels used elsewhere is a serious reproducibility/correctness concern, but it is not circularity: it does not make the reported benchmark numbers equivalent to the training data by construction. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the benchmark claim, and no circular step meets the evidence standard of a parameter or equation reducing to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on a small set of annotation-design choices. The trust construct is defined by the authors and validated only through annotator agreement; no external clinical validation is provided. The fixed initial trust level is a free parameter that shapes all trajectory and outcome analyses. No model hyperparameters or dataset splits are released, which limits independent checking.

free parameters (2)
  • Initial trust level = 2.5 (fixed for all sessions)
    Section 3.2 sets the starting trust level for every conversation to 2.5 because no prior context exists. All trajectory and outcome analyses in Sections 4 and 7.2 use this starting point, so the reported positive/negative jump statistics are conditional on this choice.
  • Intermediate half-level trust labels (1.5, 2.5, 3.5) = n/a (added after low IAA)
    Section 3.3 reports that intermediate levels were introduced in Iteration 2 to resolve disagreements. The choice of half-step granularity shapes the label distribution (Figure 1) and is an ad hoc design decision, not derived from theory.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Trust in therapeutic text is inferable from patient utterances and topic alignment.
    Sections 3.1 and 3.2 define trust through sharing sensitive information, opening up, and staying on topic; the annotation procedure assumes these are readable from text alone without nonverbal cues.
  • domain assumption The HOPE dataset is a suitable base for counseling trust research.
    Section 3 states MENTAL-TRUST extends the public HOPE counseling dataset; any sampling or modality biases in HOPE transfer to the new labels.
  • ad hoc to paper Every conversation begins at the neutral trust level 2.5.
    Section 3.2: 'conversations are initialized with a trust level of 2.5... fair assumption to ensure consistency.' This constant is then used to define positive/negative outcomes and trajectory statistics.
  • domain assumption Topic alignment and digression can be judged consistently by annotators.
    Section 3.3 reports that the final kappa of 0.77 was reached only after expert-provided criteria clarified how topic should influence trust, so the labels depend on that shared judgment.
invented entities (1)
  • Trust as a dynamic ordinal metric (MENTAL-TRUST scale)
    purpose: Quantify therapeutic bond as a moment-by-moment patient openness score for therapist assistance and model benchmarking.
    The construct is introduced by the paper and is not validated against external measures such as patient-reported alliance or session outcomes; the only evidence is annotator agreement (Kappa 0.77).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trust Modeling in Counseling Conversations: A Benchmark Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/37JOY6RJ

@misc{pith2026250103064,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trust Modeling in Counseling Conversations: A Benchmark Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/37JOY6RJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03064}
}
read the original abstract

In mental health counseling, a variety of earlier studies have focused on dialogue modeling. However, most of these studies give limited to no emphasis on the quality of interaction between a patient and a therapist. The therapeutic bond between a patient and a therapist directly correlates with effective mental health counseling. It involves developing the patient's trust on the therapist over the course of counseling. To assess the therapeutic bond in counseling, we introduce trust as a therapist-assistive metric. Our definition of trust involves patients' willingness and openness to express themselves and, consequently, receive better care. We conceptualize it as a dynamic trajectory observable through textual interactions during the counseling. To facilitate trust modeling, we present MENTAL-TRUST, a novel counseling dataset comprising manual annotation of 212 counseling sessions with first-of-its-kind seven expert-verified ordinal trust levels. We project our problem statement as an ordinal classification task for trust quantification and propose a new benchmark, TrustBench, comprising a suite of classical and state-of-the-art language models on MENTAL-TRUST. We evaluate the performance across a suite of metrics and lay out an exhaustive set of findings. Our study aims to unfold how trust evolves in therapeutic interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03064 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of ridge density for each trust [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of trust progression scenarios ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Topic of discussion in counseling ses￾sions segmented into two major segments. Top: illustrating core topics in sessions with a positive outcome; Bottom: showing topics in sessions with negative outcomes. its position as the top-performing model on the proposed dataset. Our findings underline the ef￾fectiveness of specialized and smaller models like Mental-BART in the trust modeling task and high￾light the limitatio… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the progression in trust scores, represented as either increasing or decreasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. M-HELP: Using Social Media Data to Detect Mental Health Help-Seeking Signals

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    M-HELP is a new expert-annotated Reddit dataset for detecting help-seeking posts, mental health disorders, and their causes, benchmarked across 14 models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    URL: " 'urlintro :=

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year eprint doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRINGS urlintro eprinturl eprintpr...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Prottay Kumar Adhikary, Aseem Srivastava, Shivani Kumar, Salam Michael Singh, Puneet Manuja, Jini K Gopinath, Vijay Krishnan, Swati Kedia, Koushik Sinha Deb, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.19052 Exploring the efficacy of large language models in summarizing mental health counseling sessions: A benchmark study

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Dubey et al. 2024 a . http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783 The llama 3 herd of models

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Marah Abdin et al. 2024 b . http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14219 Phi-3 technical report: A highly capable language model locally on your phone

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Clare Beatty, Tanya Malik, Saha Meheli, and Chaitali Sinha. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.847991 Evaluating the therapeutic alliance with a free-text cbt conversational agent (wysa): A mixed-methods study . Frontiers in Digital Health, 4

    work page arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Katherine Berry, Amy Salter, Rohan Morris, Susannah James, and Sandra Bucci. 2018. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8252 Assessing therapeutic alliance in the context of mhealth interventions for mental health problems: Development of the mobile agnew relationship measure (marm) questionnaire . J Med Internet Res, 20(4):e90

    work page doi:10.2196/jmir.8252 2018

  8. [8]

    Johanna Birkh \"a uer, Jens Gaab, Joe Kossowsky, Sebastian Hasler, Peter Krummenacher, Christoph Werner, and Heike Gerger. 2017. Trust in the health care professional and health outcome: A meta-analysis. PloS one, 12(2):e0170988

    work page 2017

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    John Bowlby. 1969. Attachment and loss. 79. Random House

    1969

  2. [10]

    J Adam Carter. 2024. Therapeutic trust. Philosophical Psychology, 37(1):38--61

    2024

  3. [11]

    Po-Chuan Chen, Mahdin Rohmatillah, You-Teng Lin, and Jen-Tzung Chien. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00604 Convcounsel: A conversational dataset for student counseling

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Paul Crits-Christoph, Agnes Rieger, Averi Gaines, and Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons. 2019 a . Trust and respect in the patient-clinician relationship: preliminary development of a new scale. BMC Psychol

    2019

  5. [13]

    Paul Crits-Christoph, Agnes Rieger, Averi Gaines, and Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons. 2019 b . Trust and respect in the patient-clinician relationship: preliminary development of a new scale. BMC psychology, 7:1--8

    2019

  6. [14]

    Shane Cross, Imogen Bell, Jennifer Nicholas, Lee Valentine, Shaminka Mangelsdorf, Simon Baker, Nick Titov, and Mario Alvarez-Jimenez. 2024. https://doi.org/10.2196/60589 Use of ai in mental health care: Community and mental health professionals survey . JMIR Ment Health, 11:e60589

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Alison Darcy, Jade Daniels, David Salinger, Paul Wicks, and Athena Robinson. 2021. https://doi.org/10.2196/27868 Evidence of human-level bonds established with a digital conversational agent: Cross-sectional, retrospective observational study . JMIR Form Res, 5(5):e27868

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805 Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Erik Homburger Erikson. 1963. Childhood and society, volume 2. Norton New York

    1963

  10. [18]

    Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03654 Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Shaoxiong Ji, Tianlin Zhang, Luna Ansari, Jie Fu, Prayag Tiwari, and Erik Cambria. 2021. http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15621 Mentalbert: Publicly available pretrained language models for mental healthcare

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas ...

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Mohammad Amin Kuhail, Nazik Alturki, Justin Thomas, Amal K Alkhalifa, and Amal Alshardan. 2024. Human-human vs human-ai therapy: An empirical study. International Journal of Human--Computer Interaction, pages 1--12

    2024

  14. [22]

    Zhenzhong Lan, Mingda Chen, Sebastian Goodman, Kevin Gimpel, Piyush Sharma, and Radu Soricut. 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.11942 Albert: A lite bert for self-supervised learning of language representations

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019. http://arxiv.org/abs/1910.13461 Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Anqi Li, Lizhi Ma, Yaling Mei, Hongliang He, Shuai Zhang, Huachuan Qiu, and Zhenzhong Lan. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.577 Understanding client reactions in online mental health counseling . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for C...

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. http://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11692 Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Ganeshan Malhotra, Abdul Waheed, Aseem Srivastava, Md Shad Akhtar, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1145/3488560.3498509 Speaker and time-aware joint contextual learning for dialogue-act classification in counselling conversations . In Proceedings of the Fiftee...

    2022

  19. [27]

    Mariana Merino, Jose Francisco Tornero-Aguilera, Alejandro Rubio-Zarapuz, Carlota Valeria Villanueva-Tobaldo, Alexandra Martin-Rodriguez, and Vicente Javier Clemente-Suarez. 2024. Body perceptions and psychological well-being: A review of the impact of social media and physica...

    2024

  20. [28]

    David Bamidele Olawade, Ojima Zechariah Wada, Aderonke Odetayo, Aanuoluwapo Clement David-Olawade, Fiyinfoluwa Asaolu, and Judith Eberhardt. 2024. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:269222234 Enhancing mental health with artificial intelligence: Current trends and future...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Gain Park, Jiyun Chung, and Seyoung Lee. 2024. Human vs. machine-like representation in chatbot mental health counseling: the serial mediation of psychological distance and trust on compliance intention. Current Psychology, 43(5):4352--4363

    2024

  22. [30]

    Flavio Petruzzellis, Alberto Testolin, and Alessandro Sperduti. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.17396 Benchmarking gpt-4 on algorithmic problems: A systematic evaluation of prompting strategies

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Plutchik

    R. Plutchik. 1982. A psychoevolutionary theory of emotions. In Social Science Information, pages 529--553

    1982

  24. [32]

    Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. http://jmlr.org/papers/v21/20-074.html Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer . Journal of Machine Lea...

    2020

  25. [33]

    Emma L van der Schyff, Brad Ridout, Krestina L Amon, Rowena Forsyth, and Andrew J Campbell. 2023. https://doi.org/10.2196/46448 Providing self-led mental health support through an artificial intelligence--powered chat bot (leora) to meet the demand of mental health care . J Me...

    2023 doi

  26. [34]

    Ur s ka Smrke, Izidor Mlakar, Simon Lin, Bojan Musil, and Nejc Plohl. 2021. https://doi.org/10.2196/30439 Language, speech, and facial expression features for artificial intelligence--based detection of cancer survivors' depression: Scoping meta-review . JMIR Ment Health, 8(12):e30439

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Benedetta Spadaro, Nayra A Martin-Key, Erin Funnell, Ji r \'i Ben \'a c ek, and Sabine Bahn. 2023. https://doi.org/10.2196/43271 Opportunities for the implementation of a digital mental health assessment tool in the united kingdom: Exploratory survey study . JMIR Form Res, 7:e43271

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Aseem Srivastava, Tanya Gupta, Alison Cerezo, Sarah Peregrine, Lord, Md Shad Akhtar, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2023 a . http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01618 Critical behavioral traits foster peer engagement in online mental health communities

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Aseem Srivastava, Smriti Joshi, Tanmoy Chakraborty, and Md Shad Akhtar. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.14907 Knowledge planning in large language models for domain-aligned counseling summarization

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Aseem Srivastava, Ishan Pandey, Md Shad Akhtar, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2023 b . https://doi.org/10.1145/3543507.3583380 Response-act guided reinforced dialogue generation for mental health counseling . In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, WWW '23, page 1118–1129, Ne...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Lord, Md Shad Akhtar, and Tanmoy Chakraborty

    Aseem Srivastava, Tharun Suresh, Sarah P. Lord, Md Shad Akhtar, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1145/3534678.3539187 Counseling summarization using mental health knowledge guided utterance filtering . In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowled...

    2022

  32. [40]

    Dehua Tao, Harold Chui, Sarah Luk, and Tan Lee. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCSLP57327.2022.10038072 Cuempathy: A counseling speech dataset for psychotherapy research . In 2022 13th International Symposium on Chinese Spoken Language Processing (ISCSLP), pages 354--358

    2022

  33. [41]

    Gemini Team. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.05530 Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Kailai Yang, Tianlin Zhang, Ziyan Kuang, Qianqian Xie, and Sophia Ananiadou. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.13567 Mentalllama: Interpretable mental health analysis on social media with large language models

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V. Le. 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/1906.08237 Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Zhouan Zhu, Chenguang Li, Jicai Pan, Xin Li, Yufei Xiao, Yanan Chang, Feiyi Zheng, and Shangfei Wang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3581783.3612346 Medic: A multimodal empathy dataset in counseling . In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM '23...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.