Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 23 references

RHealthTwin: Towards Responsible and Multimodal Digital Twins for Personalized Well-being

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that structuring LLM prompts into predefined ethical slots makes health digital twins safe, explainable, and compliant, beating zero-shot, few-shot, and instruction-tuned baselines on factuality, ethics, and…

desk verdict Plausible framework, but the evaluation is circular and the headline numbers are uninterpretable; worth refereeing for the architectural ideas, not for the empirical claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08486 v1 pith:FUTNSXIE submitted 2025-06-10 cs.AI

Rahatara Ferdousi , M Anwar Hossain This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords digitaltwinsresponsibleAIlargelanguagemodelspromptengineeringconsumerhealthWHOethicsmultimodalsystemspersonalizedhealthcare
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 proposes RHealthTwin, a framework for building consumer health 'digital twins' on top of a large language model, and claims its Responsible Prompt Engine (RPE) makes such twins safe, explainable, and ethically aligned. Instead of letting users type free-form prompts, RPE dynamically extracts predefined slots—user query, personal context, role, tone, safety filters, few-shot examples, and justification—and composes them into a structured user prompt and system instruction. The authors report state-of-the-art reference scores (BLEU 0.41, ROUGE-L 0.63, BERTScore 0.89) and above-90 percent scores on GPT-4-judged ethics and instruction-following metrics across mental health, clinical QA, nutrition, and lifestyle datasets. A sympathetic reader would care because the paper offers a low-cost, model-agnostic way to impose WHO-style ethical governance on general-purpose LLMs in health settings, avoiding fine-tuning.

What carries the argument

The Responsible Prompt Engine (RPE) is a slot-based prompt constructor that formalizes prompt generation as controlled extraction of predefined fields (UQ, CP, J, ROLE, TONE, FILT, FE) from multimodal input via an LLM with structural tags, then composes those fields into a structured UserPrompt and SystemInstruction. The mechanism works by replacing unconstrained user instructions with template-bounded slot values, which the paper argues reduces hallucination, enforces safety filters, and grounds outputs with justification and evidence, while a feedback loop (Algorithm 3) adapts slot templates to user preferences over time.

What would settle it

Run a human-expert evaluation on a stratified sample of the same synthetic prompts and compare expert ratings to GPT-4 judge scores for FS, CAS, ICS, and WRR; if inter-rater agreement falls below a conventional threshold (e.g., Cohen's kappa < 0.4) or experts rate RPE outputs no better than instruction-tuned baselines, the central claim of responsible-behavior superiority is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

RHealthTwin's central claim is that the quality, safety, and ethical alignment of an LLM's health answers can be governed at the prompt level by a slot-based Responsible Prompt Engine (RPE). RPE takes multimodal user input, converts it to text if needed, and extracts seven slot values—user query (UQ), context (CP), justification (J), role (ROLE), tone (TONE), filters (FILT), and few-shot examples (FE)—using template-guided generation with span-based post-processing. These slots are composed into a UserPrompt and SystemInstruction that are passed to the health LLM, with optional retrieval grounding and agent actions, and a feedback loop updates slot templates from user reactions. Evaluated on four benchmark datasets with over 4,000 synthetic patient/provider prompts, RPE outperformed zero-shot, few-shot, and instruction-tuned baselines on factuality, contextual appropriateness, instructional compliance, and a WHO-aligned responsibility rubric, and achieved the highest reference-based scores, indicating closer alignment with human-annotated responses.

Load-bearing premise

The results stand on the assumption that GPT-4's automated judgments of factuality, contextual appropriateness, instruction compliance, and WHO-aligned responsibility reflect what human health experts would say; if that link fails, the reported superiority over baselines reduces to 'an LLM judge prefers structured prompts.'

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • RPE-style slot prompting can substitute for parameter-level optimization in mid-resource healthcare settings where fine-tuning data or compute are limited.
  • Prompt-level governance can operationalize WHO ethical principles (autonomy, well-being, transparency, accountability, equity, sustainability) without retraining the underlying LLM.
  • The same slot-structured prompts remain effective under multimodal input (screenshots, sensor logs), not just text.
  • Because RPE is model-agnostic, it can be applied across GPT-4, Gemini, LLaMA, BioMistral, and other instruction-tuned models with consistent gains.
  • Ethical compliance metrics (ICS > 0.94, WRR > 0.92) are maintained across patient and provider roles, suggesting role-appropriate behavior can be enforced via prompt structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If GPT-4-as-judge does not track human expert assessment, the reported superiority of RPE on FS, CAS, ICS, and WRR would need revision; the underlying slot-prompting method might still improve lexical alignment but not necessarily ethical quality.
  • A direct ablation—feeding the same slot content as a single unstructured system prompt—would test whether the multi-step extraction pipeline is the source of the gains or whether merely including the information suffices.
  • The WRR rubric's binary per-criterion scoring may obscure partial compliance; a graded rubric could change cross-strategy rankings.
  • The feedback-loop adaptation (Algorithm 3) was not evaluated in the experiments; its claimed longitudinal benefit remains untested.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RHealthTwin, a framework for responsible LLM-based digital twins in consumer health, centered on a Responsible Prompt Engine (RPE) that extracts predefined slots from multimodal input to construct structured user prompts and system instructions aligned with WHO ethical principles. The paper evaluates RPE against zero-shot, few-shot, and instruction-tuned baselines across four health datasets, reporting reference-based metrics (BLEU, ROUGE-L, BERTScore) and four GPT-4-as-judge metrics (FS, CAS, ICS, WRR). It claims state-of-the-art results and over 90% ethical compliance.

Significance. If the empirical claims were fully supported, the framework would be a useful contribution to responsible AI in health, operationalizing WHO principles into a prompt structure, with a modular architecture, open-source code and prototype, and a synthetic prompt corpus. The need for more reliable prompting for health LLMs is genuine, and the slot-based design is interesting. However, the evidence as presented is insufficient for the central claims: the LLM-based judge metrics are unvalidated, the reference-based scores are tied to an unspecified synthetic-prompt-to-reference mapping, and the abstract's state-of-the-art claim is contradicted by the paper's own caution about comparison validity. The strengths of the paper are the architecture and the attempt to embed ethical constraints, but the evaluation needs substantial work before the claims are supportable.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-E, Eqs. (14)-(17)] The FS, CAS, ICS, and WRR metrics are all computed by GPT-4 as a judge, with no human validation, no inter-rater reliability, and no analysis of judge bias. Because RPE steers the same GPT-4 family models that serve as judges, the reported high scores (FS > 4.5, ICS > 0.94, WRR > 0.92) may reflect the judge preferring its own induced style rather than genuinely safer or more responsible outputs. This is load-bearing for the paper's central claim of outperforming baselines on ethical compliance; the authors should either calibrate the judge against human expert ratings on a subsample or provide evidence that the GPT-4 judgments track human judgments.
  2. [Section IV-B and Table VI] The reference-based BLEU, ROUGE-L, and BERTScore are computed on synthetically generated prompts, but the paper never specifies how each synthetic prompt is paired with a ground-truth reference from MentalChat16k or MTS-Dialog. Without a prompt-to-reference mapping, lexical and semantic overlap scores are uninterpretable because it is unclear what reference text corresponds to a synthetic prompt. The authors need to describe the mapping or restrict these metrics to the original ground-truth prompts.
  3. [Abstract and Section IV-G] The abstract claims 'RPE achieves state-of-the-art results' and 'outperforming baseline strategies,' but Section IV-G explicitly cautions that direct performance comparisons with prior digital-twin systems 'may not be valid' due to divergent experimental setups. The paper only compares prompting baselines on the same models, not against prior state-of-the-art digital-twin systems, so the state-of-the-art claim is unsupported. The abstract should be revised to match the actual scope of comparison, or the authors should provide a genuine SOTA comparison on shared benchmarks.
  4. [Section IV.F.1 and Table VII] Section IV.F.1 states that 'RPE yielded scores exceeding 4.5 on the 5-point Likert scale across all datasets,' whereas Table VII reports FS: 4.2 and CAS: 4.1 for RHealthTwin on MentalChat16k and MTS-Dialog. This internal inconsistency prevents the reader from knowing which numbers are correct and undermines the credibility of the reported superiority. The authors should reconcile these values or clarify which figures are definitive.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.C, Eq. (7)] In the definition of PsystemBehavior, the expression 'Fslot ∪ Fslot(M ; θFE)' is missing a function argument after the third set-union operator; it should likely be 'Fslot(M ; θJUST)' or similar.
  2. [Section III.E, first paragraph] The sentence contains a duplicated article: 'the the DT operates' should read 'the DT operates'.
  3. [Page 1, Index Terms] The Index Terms block contains an unrelated sentence 'You can explore the additional materials and prototype at: https://github.com/...'; this repository pointer should be moved to a footnote or acknowledgments section.
  4. [Section IV.E, Eq. (13)] The name 'BELU' is a typo; it should be 'BLEU'.
  5. [Table VII] The acronym 'CS' is used in the RHealthTwin row but is never defined; it is possibly a typo for 'CAS' or 'ICS'. Also, the reported ICS and WRR values (0.94, 0.92) conflict with the strict inequalities 'ICS > 0.94 and WRR > 0.92' in the main text and in Section IV.F.2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: RPE is a prompt-engineering method evaluated on standard metrics; the LLM-as-judge evaluation is a validity concern, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The RHealthTwin contribution is a slot-based prompt engine, not a fitted model; no parameter is trained on the evaluation labels, and the reference-based scores (BLEU, ROUGE-L, BERTScore) are standard overlap metrics against dataset ground truth. The FS, CAS, ICS, and WRR metrics are defined via GPT-4-as-judge (Eqs. 14-17), and the paper explicitly states the evaluation is 'fully automated using GPT-based evaluation in place of human annotation.' This creates a legitimate external-validity problem: the generator and judge are GPT-4-family models, so the reported >90% ICS and WRR numbers may reflect prompt-induced stylistic preferences rather than independently verified ethical compliance. However, this is not a circular derivation in the formal sense, because the metrics are not defined as the input prompts themselves and the judge could in principle return non-compliant verdicts. The two self-citations (refs [15] and [21]) are minor and not load-bearing. The abstract's 'state-of-the-art' claim is internally undermined by Section IV-G's caveat that direct comparisons 'may not be valid,' but that is an overclaim rather than a circular step. Overall, the central derivation is independent; the score reflects only minor self-citation and the unvalidated-judge caveat, not structural circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central evaluation rests on a chain of unvalidated choices: manually designed slot templates define the intervention; GPT-4 as judge defines the outcome; synthetic prompts define the test set; and a 15% sample is assumed representative. The framework itself introduces no new physical entity, but the metric 'WHO-aligned Responsibility Rubric' is a new construct with no independent validation.

free parameters (4)
  • Slot template set (UQ, CP, J, ROLE, TONE, FILT, FE) = Hand-designed templates shown in Figures 4 and 5
    The core mechanism is a set of predefined slot templates chosen by the authors; response quality directly depends on these manual choices.
  • Evaluation sampling ratio = 15% of each dataset
    Section IV-D samples about 15% per dataset, borrowed from a fine-tuning paper, with no representativeness analysis for prompt-level evaluation.
  • RAG or web search result count = 5 snippets
    Algorithm 2 sets MaxResults=5, which bounds the grounding evidence and may affect factuality scores.
  • WRR binary criteria weights = Uniform 1/6 for six criteria
    The WHO-aligned Responsibility Rubric assigns equal binary weight to Safety, Transparency, Explainability, Fairness, Human Agency, and Accountability without clinical or psychometric justification.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper GPT-4 judgments are a valid proxy for factuality, appropriateness, compliance, and WHO-aligned responsibility.
    All four proposed metrics (FS, CAS, ICS, WRR) are computed by GPT-4 as judge; no human expert agreement is presented. Section IV-E.
  • ad hoc to paper Synthetic prompts generated from dataset attributes can be evaluated against the original ground-truth responses.
    Reference-based BLEU, ROUGE, and BERTScore are reported for MentalChat16k and MTS-Dialog, yet test prompts are newly generated; the pairing between synthetic prompts and ground-truth references is not established. Sections IV-B and IV-F.
  • domain assumption WHO's six ethical principles are adequately operationalized by prompt modules.
    Table II equates prompt-level safeguards with WHO compliance; no empirical test shows that these safeguards change behavior in high-stakes settings.
  • domain assumption Inference-time instruction and safety tuning through prompts substitutes for model alignment.
    Section III-D claims instruction tuning at inference time yields alignment without retraining, citing [22]; this is asserted rather than demonstrated.
  • standard math BLEU, ROUGE-L, and BERTScore are meaningful quality measures for health advice.
    These are lexical and semantic overlap metrics, not validated for clinical safety; the paper uses them as primary reference-based evidence. Section IV-E1.
  • domain assumption The 15% sampled subsets represent the full datasets.
    Section IV-D adopts 15% without stratification, seed control, or power analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RHealthTwin: Towards Responsible and Multimodal Digital Twins for Personalized Well-being." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FUTNSXIE

@misc{pith2026250608486,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RHealthTwin: Towards Responsible and Multimodal Digital Twins for Personalized Well-being},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FUTNSXIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08486}
}
read the original abstract

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has created new possibilities for digital twins in healthcare. However, the deployment of such systems in consumer health contexts raises significant concerns related to hallucination, bias, lack of transparency, and ethical misuse. In response to recommendations from health authorities such as the World Health Organization (WHO), we propose Responsible Health Twin (RHealthTwin), a principled framework for building and governing AI-powered digital twins for well-being assistance. RHealthTwin processes multimodal inputs that guide a health-focused LLM to produce safe, relevant, and explainable responses. At the core of RHealthTwin is the Responsible Prompt Engine (RPE), which addresses the limitations of traditional LLM configuration. Conventionally, users input unstructured prompt and the system instruction to configure the LLM, which increases the risk of hallucination. In contrast, RPE extracts predefined slots dynamically to structure both inputs. This guides the language model to generate responses that are context aware, personalized, fair, reliable, and explainable for well-being assistance. The framework further adapts over time through a feedback loop that updates the prompt structure based on user satisfaction. We evaluate RHealthTwin across four consumer health domains including mental support, symptom triage, nutrition planning, and activity coaching. RPE achieves state-of-the-art results with BLEU = 0.41, ROUGE-L = 0.63, and BERTScore = 0.89 on benchmark datasets. Also, we achieve over 90% in ethical compliance and instruction-following metrics using LLM-as-judge evaluation, outperforming baseline strategies. We envision RHealthTwin as a forward-looking foundation for responsible LLM-based applications in health and well-being.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08486 by the authors.

Figure 9
Figure 9. Factual Score(FS) and Contextual Accuracy Score (CAS) for all datasets using patient-side prompts. RPE shows the highest scores, indicating strong alignment with ethical and instructional goals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Instructional Compliance Score (ICS) and WHO-aligned Responsibility Rubric (WRR) for all datasets using healthcare provider￾side prompts. The RPE strategy maintains top ethical compliance and role alignment across all datasets. intermediate layer between raw user input and LLM inference in real-world applications. 2) WHO Responsibility Rubric and Instructional Compliance (WRR and ICS): We further evaluated models ba… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Large language models encode clinical knowledge,

    K. Singhal, S. Azizi, T. Tu, S. S. Mahdavi, J. Wei, H. W. Chung, N. Scales, A. Tanwani, H. Cole -Lewis, S. Pfohl et al., “Large language models encode clinical knowledge,” Nature, vol. 620, no. 7972, pp. 172– 180, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Large ai models in health informatics: Applications, challenges, and the future,

    J. Qiu, L. Li, J. Sun, J. Peng, P. Shi, R. Zhang, Y. Dong, K. Lam, F. P.-W. Lo, B. Xiao et al., “Large ai models in health informatics: Applications, challenges, and the future,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 6074–6087, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Dietary assessment with multimodal chatgpt: a systematic analysis,

    F. P.-W. Lo, J. Qiu, Z. Wang, J. Chen, B. Xiao, W. Yuan, S. Giannarou, G. Frost, and B. Lo, “Dietary assessment with multimodal chatgpt: a systematic analysis,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informat - ics, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Twin -gpt: digital twins for clinical trials via large language model,

    Y. Wang, T. Fu, Y. Xu, Z. Ma, H. Xu, B. Du, Y. Lu, H. Gao, J. Wu, and J. Chen, “Twin -gpt: digital twins for clinical trials via large language model,” ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    A joint llm -kg system for disease q&a,

    P. C. Sukhwal, V. Rajan, and A. Kankanhalli, “A joint llm -kg system for disease q&a,” IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics , 2024. 18 IEEE JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATICS

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Large language models forecast patient health trajecto - ries enabling digital twins,

    N. Makarov, M. Bordukova, R. Rodriguez-Esteban, F. Schmich, and M. P. Menden, “Large language models forecast patient health trajecto - ries enabling digital twins,” medRxiv, pp. 2024–07, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Building a human digital twin (hdtwin) using large language models for cognitive diagno - sis: Algorithm development and validation,

    G. Sprint, M. Schmitter -Edgecombe, and D. Cook, “Building a human digital twin (hdtwin) using large language models for cognitive diagno - sis: Algorithm development and validation,” JMIR Formative Research, vol. 8, p. e63866, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Ethica: Designing human digital twins—a systematic review and proposed methodology,

    M. W. Lauer-Schmaltz, P. Cash, and D. G. T. Rivera, “Ethica: Designing human digital twins—a systematic review and proposed methodology,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 86 947–86 973, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Shifting artificial intelligence to be responsible in healthcare: A systematic review,

    H. Siala and Y. Wang, “Shifting artificial intelligence to be responsible in healthcare: A systematic review,” Social Science & Medicine , vol. 296, p. 114782, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Ethics and governance of artificial intel - ligence for health: Guidance on large multi -modal models,

    W. H. Organization et al. , “Ethics and governance of artificial intel - ligence for health: Guidance on large multi -modal models,” in Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: guidance on large multi-modal models, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Mentalchat16k: A benchmark dataset for conversational mental health assistance,

    J. Xu, T. Wei, B. Hou, P. Orzechowski, S. Yang, R. Jin, R. Paulbeck, J. Wagenaar, G. Demiris, and L. Shen, “Mentalchat16k: A benchmark dataset for conversational mental health assistance,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13509, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    An empirical study of clinical note generation from doctor -patient encounters,

    A. Ben Abacha, W.-w. Yim, Y. Fan, and T. Lin, “An empirical study of clinical note generation from doctor -patient encounters,” in Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics . Dubrovnik, Croatia: Association for ...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Nutribench: A dataset for evaluating large language models on nutrition estimation from meal descriptions,

    A. Hua, M. P. Dhaliwal, R. Burke, L. Pullela, and Y. Qin, “Nutribench: A dataset for evaluating large language models on nutrition estimation from meal descriptions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12843, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Sensorqa: A question answering benchmark for daily-life monitoring,

    B. Reichman, X. Yu, L. Hu, J. Truxal, A. Jain, R. Chandrupatla, T. S. Rosing, and L. Heck, “Sensorqa: A question answering benchmark for daily-life monitoring,” in Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, 2025, pp. 282–289

    2025

  7. [15]

    Digital twins for well -being: an overview,

    R. Ferdousi, F. Laamarti, M. A. Hossain, C. Yang, and A. El Saddik, “Digital twins for well -being: an overview,” Digital Twin, vol. 1, p. 7, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Instruction tuning large language models to understand electronic health records,

    Z. Wu, A. Dadu, M. Nalls, F. Faghri, and J. Sun, “Instruction tuning large language models to understand electronic health records,” in The Thirty -eight Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track , 2024. [Online]. Available: https://open...

    2024

  9. [17]

    The development of canprompt strategy in large language models for cancer care,

    N. Ahmad, E. Mamatjan, T. Wali, and Y. Mamatjan, “The development of canprompt strategy in large language models for cancer care,” in 2024 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (CIBCB), 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  10. [18]

    Prompt engineering in medical image segmentation: An overview of the paradigm shift,

    H. Ali, M. F. Bulbul, and Z. Shah, “Prompt engineering in medical image segmentation: An overview of the paradigm shift,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain, and Internet of Things (AIBThings), 2023, pp. 1–4

    2023

  11. [19]

    How reliable ai chatbots are for disease prediction from patient complaints?

    A. S. Nipu, K. M. S. Islam, and P. Madiraju, “How reliable ai chatbots are for disease prediction from patient complaints?” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration for Data Science (IRI), 2024, pp. 210–215

    2024

  12. [20]

    Rlhf -v: Towards trustworthy mllms via behavior alignment from fine -grained correctional human feedback,

    T. Yu, Y. Yao, H. Zhang, T. He, Y. Han, G. Cui, J. Hu, Z. Liu, H.-T. Zheng, and M. Sun, “Rlhf -v: Towards trustworthy mllms via behavior alignment from fine -grained correctional human feedback,” in 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 20...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Llm -therapist: A rag-based multimodal behavioral therapist as healthcare assistant,

    F. R. Shafi and M. A. Hossain, “Llm -therapist: A rag-based multimodal behavioral therapist as healthcare assistant,” in GLOBECOM 2024 - 2024 IEEE Global Communications Conference, 2024, pp. 2129–2134

    2024

  14. [22]

    Health -llm: Large language models for health prediction via wearable sensor data,

    Y. Kim, X. Xu, D. McDuff, C. Breazeal, and H. W. Park, “Health -llm: Large language models for health prediction via wearable sensor data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.06866, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Psydt: Using llms to construct the digital twin of psychological counselor with person - alized counseling style for psychological counseling,

    H. Xie, Y. Chen, X. Xing, J. Lin, and X. Xu, “Psydt: Using llms to construct the digital twin of psychological counselor with person - alized counseling style for psychological counseling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13660, 2024

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.