Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 28 references

MADP: Multi-Agent Deductive Planning for Enhanced Cognitive-Behavioral Mental Health Question Answer

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A three-agent deduction built on the CBT ABC model improves LLM mental-health support scores by about five percent, and fine-tuning small models on the distilled data lets them match the larger model.

desk verdict A plausible CBT-inspired multi-agent framework whose empirical claims rest on an unvalidated LLM judge; the idea is worth a round of revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15826 v1 pith:4AEM436G submitted 2025-01-27 cs.CL

Qi Chen , Dexi Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords multi-agentreasoningmentalhealthquestionansweringcognitivebehavioraltherapyABCmodelsupportplanningLLMfine-tuningempatheticresponsegenerationcross-lingualtransfer
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

What the paper is trying to establish: a one-turn mental-health question answer (MHQA) system can do substantially better if, before writing a reply, it runs a three-agent deduction over the seeker's situation using the ABC model of cognitive behavioral therapy. The proposed framework, MADP, replaces single-agent CBT prompting with an Explorer, an Empathizer, and an Interpreter that converse in the reverse ABC order (activating event → emotional consequence → belief) and then produce a structured support plan. Across GPT4o, LLaMA3-8b, and GLM4-9b, the paper reports average gains of 4–6 percent on Analytical, Empathy, Guidance, and Comprehensive scores over the same models without the framework, on both an English and a Chinese dataset. It also reports that small open-source models fine-tuned on MADP-generated post–plan–response triples match or exceed GPT4o on several metrics, which matters because it points to a low-cost way to deploy structured, empathetic mental-health support locally.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ABC model of CBT — activating event (A), beliefs/cognitions (B), and consequences (C) — transposed into three named agents: Explorer ($A_{EX}$), Empathizer ($A_{EM}$), and Interpreter ($A_{IN}$). The framework's move is to run these agents in the reverse direction, $A \to C \to B \to A$, so that emotion is understood and voiced before cognition is interpreted, and then to separate 'support planning' from response writing: the multi-agent dialogue $d_i$ is condensed into a support plan $k_i$ of concrete points and a theme, and the final response $r_i$ is generated only from post plus plan. This deduce-then-plan-then-write chain is the component that gets distilled into the fine-tuned MADP-LLM.

What would settle it

Run a blinded preference study in which clinically trained raters score the same 180 test responses on the four dimensions with a published inter-rater agreement metric; if the human scores show no reliable difference between MADP and single-agent baselines while the automatic evaluator reports a 4–6 percent gap, the central improvement claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated on its own terms, is that mental-health support quality improves when reasoning about a help-seeker is decomposed along the CBT ABC model and run in reverse: first the Explorer identifies the activating events (A), then the Empathizer names the emotional consequences (C) and connects with them, and finally the Interpreter interprets the beliefs (B) behind those emotions and offers reframing. The authors attribute earlier methods' weak empathy scores to their focus on the cognitive element alone, and they trace MADP's improvement to the Empathizer's role in establishing emotional connection before cognitive interpretation. They further claim that capturing this reasoning as a support plan and using it as training data can distill the benefit into smaller models: MADP-LLM, fine-tuned with LoRA on plan-and-response data, matches or exceeds GPT4o's scores on several metrics despite a much smaller parameter count.

Load-bearing premise

The reported 4–6 percent improvements rest on the assumption that the automatic evaluator's scores measure real support quality and that the 18-post human evaluation confirms them; if the judge merely prefers the more structured style of MADP answers, the effect sizes in the tables would be inflated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported gains hold, closed-source frontier models are not necessary for high-scoring mental-health support: MADP-LLM, a LoRA fine-tune of LLaMA3-8b or GLM4-9b, reaches or passes GPT4o on several metrics on both English and Chinese test sets.
  • Because the same MADP prompts raise scores across three different backbones, the multi-agent deduction transfers across model families, sizes, and languages rather than being a quirk of one model.
  • The support plan acts as an explicit intermediate representation, so the framework produces a checkable record of what the model understood before it wrote the reply, which matters for accountability in a sensitive domain.
  • On the paper's evidence, cross-lingual fine-tuning helps: each small model improves more on the dataset written in its non-native language after MADP training, suggesting the plan-conditioned data teaches transferable support structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reverse ABC decomposition may generalize beyond one-turn support to longer counseling dialogues or to non-CBT frameworks, since the ordering principle — emotion before interpretation — is a general counseling heuristic; a testable extension is to apply the same three-agent order to crisis-hotline transcripts.
  • The dataset's post–plan–response triples enable an intervention study the paper does not run: corrupt or remove the plan at inference time and measure the drop in rated quality, which would isolate how much of the gain comes from planning versus the multi-agent dialogue.
  • Because the automatic judge is the only large-scale outcome measure, correlating its scores with blinded clinician ratings on the same 180 responses would test whether the 4–6 percent improvement reflects support quality or output style.
  • The paper's conclusion that human responses underperform LLM responses is drawn from dataset supporter posts rather than professional counselors; comparing against trained counselors' replies would test whether the shortfall reflects the support quality or the dataset.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MADP, a multi-agent deductive planning framework for mental health question answering. The framework operationalizes the CBT ABC model through three agents (Explorer, Empathizer, Interpreter) that produce a multi-agent dialogue, a support plan, and a final support response. The authors also construct a MADP dataset using GPT4o and fine-tune LLaMA3-8b and GLM4-9b into MADP-LLM. Experiments on EMH and PsyQA report automatic evaluations by Claude 3.5 Sonnet and a small human evaluation, claiming average improvements of roughly 4-6% across Analytical, Empathy, Guidance, and Comprehensive scores, with fine-tuned models approaching or exceeding GPT4o on several metrics.

Significance. If the reported gains are reliable, the work is useful: it is one of the few MHQA approaches that explicitly models interactions among multiple CBT elements rather than a single cognitive prompt, and the idea of distilling a planning-based multi-agent pipeline into a small open-source model for local deployment is practically valuable. The paper also evaluates across English and Chinese datasets and includes an ethical statement cautioning against unsupervised real-world use. However, the central empirical claim rests entirely on an unvalidated LLM judge and a very small human evaluation, so the quantitative contribution is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Tables 1-3] All headline improvement figures are produced by Claude 3.5 Sonnet as an automatic judge, but the judge is never validated against human ratings. No judge-human correlation, no agreement statistics, and no calibration analysis are reported. The human evaluation in §5.8 covers only 18 posts and reports no inter-annotator agreement. Because every percentage in Tables 1-3 depends on this single measurement premise, the paper should report a human-judge correlation study, per-item agreement, and confidence intervals or significance tests before claiming that MADP 'significantly enhances' performance.
  2. [Table 2] The 'Human Response' baselines score 4.52 and 6.79 on average, far below every LLM-generated response (all above 7.09). This pattern is implausible if the judge measures genuine support quality and suggests that the judge may reward LLM-typical stylistic features such as length, formatting, and empathetic phrasing rather than the four intended constructs. Since MADP systematically produces longer and more structured responses, the improvement percentages could be inflated by this style bias. The authors should investigate this with human-rated examples and, if the bias is confirmed, re-evaluate or re-calibrate the automatic judge.
  3. [§5.7, Table 3] The fine-tuned MADP-LLM models are evaluated with the same unvalidated Claude judge, and their training labels are generated by GPT4o through the MADP pipeline. This self-referential setup means the reported 'match or exceed GPT4o' results could reflect the judge's preference for a particular output style rather than genuine support quality. The paper provides no human evaluation of MADP-LLM and no comparison of fine-tuned models against human responses beyond the suspiciously low -H scores in Table 3. Independent human evaluation of MADP-LLM, or at least judge validation on these models' outputs, is needed.
  4. [§5.5 and §5.6] The statistical basis for the claims is absent. Scores are reported to one decimal place with percentage changes to two decimals, but no error bars, standard deviations, confidence intervals, or paired significance tests are provided. The test sets contain only 90 posts per dataset, so the differences in Tables 1-3 may be within sampling noise. The word 'significantly' in the abstract and §5.5 is not supported by any statistical test.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1] There is a typo: 'approachs' should be 'approaches'.
  2. [Table 3] The table formatting has readability issues, for example 'LLaMA3-8bft-MApr7.60' and 'LLaMA3-8bft-MApr7.81' run the model name and score together; please insert spacing or use a clearer separator.
  3. [§5.1] The dataset description says test pairs are 'randomly selected' but does not report the random seed or selection procedure. Also, for EMH it is not stated how the 'ideal answer' was chosen when multiple responses exist; this should be specified for reproducibility.
  4. [§4.1 and §4.2] The term MADP-LLM is used both as a singular specialized model in the abstract and as a family of fine-tuned models in Table 3. Please clarify whether MADP-LLM is one model or a collection of models.
  5. [General] No data or code availability statement is provided. Since the paper introduces a new dataset and fine-tuned models, releasing the dataset, prompts, and training scripts would substantially support reproducibility.
  6. [Figure 3] The figure contains stray text such as 'oo' and the prompt text is very small; a cleaner, larger rendering would help readers follow the three stages.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the MADP pipeline is a prompting and distillation framework with independent, held-out evaluation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The MADP framework is a three-stage LLM prompting pipeline (multi-agent dialogue, support planning, response generation) whose outputs are judged by a separate LLM (Claude 3.5 Sonnet) and by a small blind human evaluation. The zero-shot comparisons in Tables 1 and 2 use human-authored posts and compare MADP-prompted LLMs against standard, Cue-CoT, and CBT baselines; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The MADP-LLM component is a standard distillation/fine-tuning experiment: GPT4o generates a training corpus, and smaller models are fine-tuned on a random 80% split and evaluated on the held-out 20% by the same external judge. The teacher is not the judge, and the test outputs are not scored against the teacher's reference outputs, so the improvement does not reduce to the training signal by construction. The automatic judge is not validated against human ratings, and the human evaluation is small (18 posts); these are measurement-validity concerns, not circularity, and the paper's own ethical statement appropriately limits deployment claims. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new physical or formal entities; its 'agents' are prompt roles, and the dataset is a collection of generated texts. The assumptions above are the ones the results rest on.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ABC model of CBT (A to B to C to A) is a valid characterization of psychological distress and its resolution.
    Section 3.1 bases the entire framework on this psychological model without establishing its validity in this context.
  • domain assumption The three LLM agents (Explorer, Empathizer, Interpreter) genuinely implement the A, C, B components and the reverse A to C to B to A analysis.
    Section 3.1 assigns roles, but the paper does not verify the dialogue order or that any measured benefit comes from this mapping rather than from generic multi-step prompting.
  • domain assumption Claude 3.5 Sonnet is a reliable, unbiased judge of mental health support quality.
    Section 5.2 uses this LLM as the automatic evaluator without calibration against human ratings.
  • domain assumption GPT4o generates sufficiently high-quality support responses to serve as teacher targets for the MADP dataset.
    Section 4.2 assumes the teacher outputs are 'high-quality' without independent human validation of the generated set.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MADP: Multi-Agent Deductive Planning for Enhanced Cognitive-Behavioral Mental Health Question Answer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4AEM436G

@misc{pith2026250115826,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MADP: Multi-Agent Deductive Planning for Enhanced Cognitive-Behavioral Mental Health Question Answer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4AEM436G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15826}
}
read the original abstract

The Mental Health Question Answer (MHQA) task requires the seeker and supporter to complete the support process in one-turn dialogue. Given the richness of help-seeker posts, supporters must thoroughly understand the content and provide logical, comprehensive, and well-structured responses. Previous works in MHQA mostly focus on single-agent approaches based on the cognitive element of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), but they overlook the interactions among various CBT elements, such as emotion and cognition. This limitation hinders the models' ability to thoroughly understand the distress of help-seekers. To address this, we propose a framework named Multi-Agent Deductive Planning (MADP), which is based on the interactions between the various psychological elements of CBT. This method guides Large Language Models (LLMs) to achieve a deeper understanding of the seeker's context and provide more personalized assistance based on individual circumstances. Furthermore, we construct a new dataset based on the MADP framework and use it to fine-tune LLMs, resulting in a specialized model named MADP-LLM. We conduct extensive experiments, including comparisons with multiple LLMs, human evaluations, and automatic evaluations, to validate the effectiveness of the MADP framework and MADP-LLM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15826 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The diagram illustrates the limitations of single-agent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) depicts the traditional ABC model in CBT, show￾ing the sequential relationship between activating events A, be￾liefs/cognitions B, and consequences C. (b) presents the proposed multi-agent framework, illustrating the interactions among the three agents (arrows indicate the flow of information). 3) The Guidance resonance (Green) is not sufficiently targeted. For example, the advice “Remind yourself that no one ca… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. An example of prompt for the MADP Framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An overview of training MADP-LLM. It first utilizes help [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Comparing physician and artificial intelligence chatbot responses to patient questions posted to a public social media forum

    John W Ayers, Adam Poliak, Mark Dredze, Eric C Leas, Zechariah Zhu, Jessica B Kelley, Dennis J Faix, Aaron M Goodman, Christopher A Longhurst, Michael Hogarth, et al. Comparing physician and artificial intelligence chatbot responses to patient questions posted to a public social media forum. JAMA internal medicine , 183:589--596, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Cognitive reconstruction, hindsight, and reactions to victims and perpetrators

    Linda L Carli. Cognitive reconstruction, hindsight, and reactions to victims and perpetrators. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 25:966–979, 1999

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    Zhu, Kunyao Lan, Zhiling Zhang, and Lyuchun Cui

    Siyuan Chen, Mengyue Wu, Kenny Q. Zhu, Kunyao Lan, Zhiling Zhang, and Lyuchun Cui. Llm-empowered chatbots for psychiatrist and patient simulation: Application and evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13614 , 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Exploring the use of large language models for reference-free text quality evaluation: An empirical study

    Yi Chen, Rui Wang, Haiyun Jiang, Shuming Shi, and Ruifeng Xu. Exploring the use of large language models for reference-free text quality evaluation: An empirical study. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: IJCNLP-AACL 2023 , pages 361--374, Nusa Dua, Bali, November 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    SoulChat : Improving llms' empathy, listening, and comfort abilities through fine-tuning with multi-turn empathy conversations

    Yirong Chen, Xiaofen Xing, Jingkai Lin, Huimin Zheng, Zhenyu Wang, Qi Liu, and Xiangmin Xu. SoulChat : Improving llms' empathy, listening, and comfort abilities through fine-tuning with multi-turn empathy conversations. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , pages 1170--1183, Singapore, December 2023. Association for Co...

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Prompting and evaluating large language models for proactive dialogues: Clarification, target-guided, and non-collaboration

    Yang Deng, Lizi Liao, Liang Chen, Hongru Wang, Wenqiang Lei, and Tat - Seng Chua. Prompting and evaluating large language models for proactive dialogues: Clarification, target-guided, and non-collaboration. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , pages 10602--10621, Singapore, December 2023. Association for Computational...

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch

    Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2024 , Vienna, Austria, July 2024. OpenReview.net

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen - Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen - Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations , Virtual Event, April 2022. OpenReview.net

    work page 2022

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    CAMEL: communicative agents for "mind" exploration of large scale language model society

    Guohao Li, Hasan Abed Al Kader Hammoud, Hani Itani, Dmitrii Khizbullin, and Bernard Ghanem. CAMEL: communicative agents for "mind" exploration of large scale language model society. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17760 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hughes, Charles Lewis, and Katia P

    Huao Li, Yu Quan Chong, Simon Stepputtis, Joseph Campbell, Dana T. Hughes, Charles Lewis, and Katia P. Sycara. Theory of mind for multi-agent collaboration via large language models. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pa...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Agentsims: An open-source sandbox for large language model evaluation

    Jiaju Lin, Haoran Zhao, Aochi Zhang, Yiting Wu, Huqiuyue Ping, and Qin Chen. Agentsims: An open-source sandbox for large language model evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04026 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Towards emotional support dialog systems

    Siyang Liu, Chujie Zheng, Orianna Demasi, Sahand Sabour, Yu Li, Zhou Yu, Yong Jiang, and Minlie Huang. Towards emotional support dialog systems. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conferen...

    2021

  5. [13]

    CBT-LLM: A Chinese large language model for cognitive behavioral therapy-based mental health question answering

    Hongbin Na. CBT-LLM: A Chinese large language model for cognitive behavioral therapy-based mental health question answering. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation , pages 2930--2940, Torino, It...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Tso, and Anitha Kannan

    Varun Nair, Elliot Schumacher, Geoffrey J. Tso, and Anitha Kannan. DERA: enhancing large language model completions with dialog-enabled resolving agents. In Proceedings of the 6th Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop , pages 122--161, Mexico City, Mexico, June 2024. A...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Control globally, understand locally: A Global-to-Local hierarchical graph network for emotional support conversation

    Wei Peng, Yue Hu, Luxi Xing, Yuqiang Xie, Yajing Sun, and Yunpeng Li. Control globally, understand locally: A Global-to-Local hierarchical graph network for emotional support conversation. In Proceedings of the 31st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , p...

    2022

  8. [16]

    SMILE: single-turn to multi-turn inclusive language expansion via chatgpt for mental health support

    Huachuan Qiu, Hongliang He, Shuai Zhang, Anqi Li, and Zhenzhong Lan. SMILE: single-turn to multi-turn inclusive language expansion via chatgpt for mental health support. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP , pages 615--636, Miami, USA, November ...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Miner, David C

    Ashish Sharma, Adam S. Miner, David C. Atkins, and Tim Althoff. A computational approach to understanding empathy expressed in text-based mental health support. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 5263--5276, Online...

    2020

  10. [18]

    PsyQA : A Chinese dataset for generating long counseling text for mental health support

    Hao Sun, Zhenru Lin, Chujie Zheng, Siyang Liu, and Minlie Huang. PsyQA : A Chinese dataset for generating long counseling text for mental health support. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL/IJCNLP 2021 , pages 1489--1503, Online, August 2021. Asso...

    2021

  11. [19]

    MISC: A mixed strategy-aware model integrating COMET for emotional support conversation

    Quan Tu, Yanran Li, Jianwei Cui, Bin Wang, Ji - Rong Wen, and Rui Yan. MISC: A mixed strategy-aware model integrating COMET for emotional support conversation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 308--319, Dublin, ...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Cue-CoT : Chain-of-thought prompting for responding to in-depth dialogue questions with llms

    Hongru Wang, Rui Wang, Fei Mi, Yang Deng, Zezhong Wang, Bin Liang, Ruifeng Xu, and Kam - Fai Wong. Cue-CoT : Chain-of-thought prompting for responding to in-depth dialogue questions with llms. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , pages 120...

    2023

  13. [21]

    Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi

    Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Self-instruct: Aligning language models with self-generated instructions. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Humanoid agents: Platform for simulating human-like generative agents

    Zhilin Wang, Yu - Ying Chiu, and Yu Cheung Chiu. Humanoid agents: Platform for simulating human-like generative agents. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 167--176, Singapore, December 2023. Association for Computa...

    2023

  15. [23]

    Large language models are not fair evaluators

    Peiyi Wang, Lei Li, Liang Chen, Zefan Cai, Dawei Zhu, Binghuai Lin, Yunbo Cao, Lingpeng Kong, Qi Liu, Tianyu Liu, and Zhifang Sui. Large language models are not fair evaluators. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages ...

    2024

  16. [24]

    HealMe : Harnessing cognitive reframing in large language models for psychotherapy

    Mengxi Xiao, Qianqian Xie, Ziyan Kuang, Zhicheng Liu, Kailai Yang, Min Peng, Weiguang Han, and Jimin Huang. HealMe : Harnessing cognitive reframing in large language models for psychotherapy. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lingui...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Escot: Towards interpretable emotional support dialogue systems

    Tenggan Zhang, Xinjie Zhang, Jinming Zhao, Li Zhou, and Qin Jin. Escot: Towards interpretable emotional support dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 13395--13412, Bangkok, Thailand, August 2024. As...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Is chatgpt equipped with emotional dialogue capabilities? arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09582 , 2023

    Weixiang Zhao, Yanyan Zhao, Xin Lu, Shilong Wang, Yanpeng Tong, and Bing Qin. Is chatgpt equipped with emotional dialogue capabilities? arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09582 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Augesc: Dialogue augmentation with large language models for emotional support conversation

    Chujie Zheng, Sahand Sabour, Jiaxin Wen, Zheng Zhang, and Minlie Huang. Augesc: Dialogue augmentation with large language models for emotional support conversation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 , pages 1552--1568, Toronto, Canada, July...

    2023

  20. [28]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

Pith tools

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