Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 35 references

DS@GT ARC at eRisk 2026: Hybrid Multi-Agent LLM System with Structured Algorithmic Guidance for Conversational Depression Screening

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that with enough algorithmic supervision, a weaker open-source language model can outperform a stronger paid model as the interviewer in conversational depression screening—and reports an eRisk 2026 run that did so while c

desk verdict Real benchmark result, honest about its own confound, but the headline claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16712 v1 pith:VOX564U2 submitted 2026-07-18 cs.AI cs.CL

Victor Gong , David Guecha This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords conversationaldepressionscreeningBDI-IImulti-agentLLMweak-to-strongdialoguetreereliability-weightedaggregationeRisk2026open-sourcemodel
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 aims to show that in a conversational depression screening task, a weaker open-source language model can replace a stronger paid model as the interviewer if wrapped in structured algorithmic guidance. It describes a three-stage pipeline evolving from a monolithic prototype to a multi-agent baseline and finally to a hybrid that swaps the paid interviewer for Gemma 27B, adding a precomputed dialogue tree, reliability-weighted consensus aggregation, and cluster imputation. The hybrid's best run achieved an official ADODL of 0.9063, ranking third among all complete runs and beating the team's own paid-model baseline (0.8841) at about one-quarter the per-persona cost. The result matters because it suggests cost and privacy barriers to using local open-source models in clinical-style screening can be lowered without sacrificing accuracy. The paper itself notes the comparison is not fully controlled, since the two configurations had different sample counts and were never held constant against the same personas.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the hybrid configuration of a multi-agent system: replace the paid interviewer with an open-source model, then add three algorithmic components that act as a scaffold. A precomputed dialogue tree with 7 symptom clusters, 12 cluster-opening questions, and 17 follow-up probes standardizes interview moves and reduces variance. Reliability-weighted consensus aggregation computes pairwise agreement scores across runs and builds a consensus BDI-II profile via a weighted median, selecting the closest runs for submission. Cluster imputation maps each unprobed symptom to three semantically related donor symptoms and infers severity only when all donors exceed a confidence thr

What would settle it

A controlled replication that freezes both systems, equalizes sample counts (e.g., 20 vs. 20), and evaluates on the same held-out personas with released ground truth; if the paid baseline then matches or beats the hybrid's ADODL, the central claim that algorithmic supervision lets the weaker model win would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in the abstract and conclusion, is that 'with sufficient algorithmic supervision, a weaker open-source model can compete with a stronger proprietary model in the conversational interviewer role.' Concretely, the hybrid run using Gemma 27B as the interviewer and GPT-5-nano as the scorer achieved official ADODL 0.9063, placing 3rd among all complete-submission runs and 2nd among teams, while the team's paid-model baseline run scored 0.8841. The hybrid also reduced per-persona API cost from roughly $8 to $2, a 75% reduction. Three algorithmic components offset Gemma's weaker reasoning and instruction-following: a precomputed dialogue tree that standardizes interview op

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hybrid's better ADODL is caused by the algorithmic supervision layered on the Gemma interviewer, rather than by the hybrid running 20 samples per persona versus the baseline's 10, or by continued system development during the submission period; the paper itself concedes these factors cannot be disentangled without an equal-pool replication.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Local open-source models can serve as interviewers in conversational health screening, reducing API cost and keeping sensitive patient-facing dialogue on-premise.
  • Structured guidance—question policy, consensus aggregation, and imputation—may transfer to other weak-model tasks where instruction-following is the bottleneck.
  • Future systems could replace the paid scorer as well, enabling a fully open-source pipeline for clinical-style screening.
  • The cost-equivalence argument (20 hybrid samples vs. 10 baseline samples) provides a practical blueprint for matching paid-model accuracy on a budget.
  • The gain in overall depression level accuracy did not extend to symptom identification: the hybrid had lower symptom hit rate, indicating a real trade-off between aggregate scoring and symptom-level precision.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the authors leave implicit is that if this result generalizes, the binding constraint in conversational AI may shift from raw model capability to orchestration quality; a strong enough scaffold could make model choice secondary.
  • The paper's own limitation suggests a testable extension: freeze both systems, equalize sample counts, and evaluate on a held-out persona set with released ground truth to isolate the contribution of algorithmic supervision from sample-size effects.
  • The observed weakness in affective probing (somatic framing at face value) implies that dialogue trees need emotion-pursuing branches explicitly designed; relying on BM25 branch selection may be insufficient for detecting underlying affect.
  • A fully open-source pipeline is the natural next step; if scoring also moves to a local model, the privacy argument becomes stronger and the cost savings even greater.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This working-notes paper reports the DS@GT submission to eRisk 2026 Task 1 (conversational depression screening). The system evolved from a single-model prototype to a multi-agent baseline (GPT-5-nano interviewer, separate scorer, orchestration) and finally to a hybrid that replaces the interviewer with open-source Gemma 27B and adds three algorithmic components: a precomputed dialogue tree, reliability-weighted aggregation, and cluster imputation. The hybrid runs 20 samples/persona versus 10 for the baseline. The authors report official ADODL of 0.9063 (Run 3) vs 0.8841 (Run 1), place 3rd among runs / 2nd among teams, a 75% cost reduction, and claim this supports the hypothesis that a weaker open-source model can compete with a stronger paid model in the interviewer role given sufficient algorithmic supervision.

Significance. If the attribution were valid, the result would be practically significant: it would demonstrate that local open-source interviewers can substitute for expensive proprietary APIs in sensitive screening applications while preserving accuracy. The paper is transparent about the system, includes a reproducibility link, and candidly lists the lack of a controlled ablation as a limitation. The official shared-task evaluation gives external validity to the absolute numbers. However, the evidence does not currently isolate the effect of algorithmic supervision from confounds (sample count, temporal drift, metric selectivity). The central claim is plausible but not established; the limitations are acknowledged in §5 but the abstract and conclusion present the claim as supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1, Table 1, §3.3] The central comparison is not sample-matched: hybrid runs use 20 samples/persona, baseline 10. Because ADODL/DCHR are run-averaged metrics, a larger pool can improve the score by variance reduction alone. The defense in §3.3 ('the larger pool is not a methodological concession but the intended operating mode') shifts the claim from 'algorithmic supervision compensates for a weaker model' to 'more samples compensate'. Provide an equal-pool subsampling of the hybrid log (e.g., 10 random hybrid runs per persona, repeated, with confidence intervals) or a frozen equal-pool evaluation. Without this, the 0.0222 ADODL gap cannot be attributed to the guidance components.
  2. [§3.3, §5] The manuscript concedes that the baseline and hybrid 'were never held constant against the same persona set under identical conditions' and that components were 'improved in parallel.' Runs 2/3 were generated later in the submission period, so temporal system drift is a competing explanation for the ADODL improvement. The claim that algorithmic supervision compensates requires either a version freeze at the point of Run 1 or a contemporaneous head-to-head on a held-out persona set; at minimum, report a change log and show the baseline itself was stable across time.
  3. [§4.2, Table 3] The conclusion highlights ADODL improvement but omits that Run 3's ASHR (0.1875) is below the baseline (0.2500) and LASHR is 0.0777 (rank 14). 'Compete' is metric-dependent; a screening system that improves total score while degrading symptom identification may not be clinically preferable. Report all official metrics in the abstract/conclusion and discuss whether this trade-off undermines the practical claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Figure 3] R²=0.885 measures linear correlation, not agreement with the y=x diagonal; with a systematic 8/14 underestimation, R² can be high despite bias. Use Bland-Altman limits or concordance correlation coefficient, and report confidence intervals for the mean differences.
  2. [§3.3] 'Held constant or improved in parallel' is internally contradictory. State exactly which components were frozen at Run 1 and which changed before Runs 2/3; otherwise the reader cannot assess the temporal drift confound.
  3. [§5] The limitation paragraph is strong and should appear earlier (e.g., in §1 or at the first internal comparison), and it should be reflected in the abstract's wording. Currently the abstract and conclusion state the hypothesis is supported before the caveat appears.
  4. [Table 3] The parenthesized rank numbers appear inconsistent for ties (e.g., DCHR 0.5500 listed as (2) for both pjmathematician and DS@GT); clarify tie-breaking and whether ranks are per-run or per-team.
  5. [General] Formatting artifacts (e.g., the author email line and the code in Appendix E) need cleanup in the camera-ready version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the central evidence is an external official benchmark, and the paper's own §5 limitation statement identifies a confound, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that an open-source Gemma 27B interviewer, when wrapped in a dialogue tree, reliability-weighted aggregation, and cluster imputation, can match a paid GPT-5-nano baseline. The evidence for this claim is the official eRisk ADODL score of 0.9063 for Run 3 versus 0.8841 for Run 1, computed by the task organizers against held-out ground-truth BDI-II scores. No quantity in the paper is defined in terms of ADODL or ground truth. The reliability-weighted aggregation 'effectively us[es] the batch itself as a weak supervision signal' (Section 3.3), but that is an internal run-selection heuristic; it does not construct the evaluation target. The dialogue tree and imputation thresholds are hand-chosen and acknowledged as heuristic ('we chose the 0.7 confidence floor as a reasonable estimate in light of no ground truth'), which is an overfitting/validity risk, not circularity. The self-citation to the team's prior eRisk 2025 paper [7] is descriptive ('Building on our prior DS@GT eRisk 2025 submission [7]') and not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work. The paper's most serious weakness is stated plainly in Section 5: the two systems 'were never held constant against the same persona set under identical conditions' and the authors 'cannot fully disentangle the contribution of sample count from that of the algorithmic components.' This is a confound between sample count, development time, and algorithmic components—an experimental-design limitation that the paper itself recommends fixing with an equal-pool replication—not a circular step in which the prediction is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The official external benchmark keeps the derivation chain independent of the paper's own fitted values.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-chosen thresholds, a hand-built dialogue tree, and manually selected donor-symptom mappings. These are free parameters in the system, not derived from theory or ground truth. No new physical or conceptual entities are postulated. The key axioms are that LLM personas provide valid evidence for BDI-II estimation and that internal consensus approximates accuracy.

free parameters (12)
  • max_turns = 18
    Hard turn limit; selected heuristically (§3.2).
  • confidence_threshold = 0.6
    Stopping condition: all symptoms exceeding 0.6 confidence after >8 turns; 'selected heuristically, tuned by manual inspection' (§3.2).
  • min_coverage = 0.7 (70% of symptoms)
    Stopping criterion; heuristic without ground truth (§3.2).
  • stability_window = BDI-II change <2 points over 3 turns after >10 turns
    Stopping condition; heuristic (§3.2).
  • imputation_confidence_floor = 0.7
    Donor confidence must exceed 0.7 for imputation; 'chose as a reasonable estimate in light of no ground truth' (§3.3).
  • imputation_severity_floor = >2
    Donor scores must be greater than 2 for imputation (§3.3).
  • imputation_cap = 2
    Imputed scores capped at 2, never maximum severity (§3.3, Appendix B).
  • donor_weights = 0.5, 0.3, 0.2
    Manually chosen priority order for three donor symptoms (Appendix B).
  • symptom_clusters_and_dialogue_tree = 7 clusters, 12 openers, 17 follow-ups
    Hand-designed interview structure (Appendix A); no validation against ground truth.
  • donor_symptom_mapping = 3 donors per symptom (Table 4)
    Manually chosen by semantic similarity; not empirically derived.
  • scorer_frequency_mapping = "sometimes" -> 1, "a lot" -> 2, "all the time" -> 3
    Prompt rubric in Appendix D is a manually set ordinal mapping; no calibration.
  • sample_pool_sizes = 10 baseline, 20 hybrid
    Design choice that directly confounds the central comparison; the authors call it 'the intended operating mode' but cannot disentangle it from the algorithmic components.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Conversation transcripts produced by simulated LLM personas contain sufficient signal to estimate BDI-II scores.
    Whole task premise; scorer prompt says base scores only on what the persona said (Appendix D).
  • domain assumption Official evaluation metrics (ADODL, DCHR, ASHR) against persona ground truth measure screening performance.
    Evaluation design; personas are LoRA adapters on Llama-3-8B, not patients.
  • domain assumption Internal consistency across repeated runs correlates with accuracy, so selecting runs closest to batch consensus is valid.
    Reliability-weighted aggregation (§3.2, §3.3) uses the batch as weak supervision; no external validation.
  • domain assumption Semantically related BDI-II symptoms can be used to impute unprobed symptoms.
    Cluster imputation donor lists (Appendix B); no empirical support.
  • domain assumption The scorer rubric's frequency-to-score mapping is ordinally correct.
    "sometimes"->1, "a lot"->2, "all the time"->3 (Appendix D); no calibration.
  • standard math BM25 text matching selects appropriate dialogue-tree follow-up branches.
    Retrieval method used in dialogue tree (§3.3); standard, not validated here.
  • standard math Standard arithmetic of reliability weights and L1 distances.
    Equation (1) and median selection in §3.3; not problematic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DS@GT ARC at eRisk 2026: Hybrid Multi-Agent LLM System with Structured Algorithmic Guidance for Conversational Depression Screening." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VOX564U2

@misc{pith2026260716712,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DS@GT ARC at eRisk 2026: Hybrid Multi-Agent LLM System with Structured Algorithmic Guidance for Conversational Depression Screening},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VOX564U2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16712}
}
read the original abstract

We describe DS@GT's submission to the eRisk 2026 Task 1 challenge on conversational depression screening, in which systems interview LLM personas that simulate individuals with varying depression profiles and produce a Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) score plus four key symptoms per persona, without directly asking sensitive mental health questions. Our pipeline evolved through three stages: a monolithic single-model prototype to start off, a baseline multi-agent architecture that separates conversational interviewing from BDI-II scoring under a coordinating orchestration layer, and a final hybrid configuration that replaces the paid GPT-5-nano interviewer with the open-source Gemma 27B. To offset the model's weaker reasoning and instruction-following, the hybrid adds three algorithmic components: a precomputed dialogue tree that standardizes interview openers and follow-ups, a reliability-weighted consensus aggregation inspired by the Weaver framework, and a cluster-based imputation step for unprobed symptoms. We submitted three fully automated runs across all 20 personas, with Run 1 from the paid baseline and Runs 2 and 3 from the hybrid. Hybrid Run 3 achieved an ADODL of 0.9063, ranking 3rd among all complete-submission runs and placing DS@GT 2nd among the 21 teams overall, while outperforming our paid baseline Run 1 (0.8841) at roughly one-quarter of the per-persona API cost. These results support our central hypothesis that with sufficient algorithmic supervision, a weaker open-source model can compete with a stronger proprietary model in the conversational interviewer role. Our source code is available at https://github.com/dsgt-arc/erisk-task1-2026.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16712 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multi-agent system architecture. The interviewer agent conducts turn-by-turn dialogue with the LLM persona, and the scorer agent updates BDI-II symptom estimates and confidence levels after each turn. The orchestration layer ranks symptom priorities, directs the interviewer toward the highest-priority targets, and enforces the stopping conditions. The full loop runs 10 to 20 interview samples per persona, and the sa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cluster 1 (Mood & Pleasure) of the precomputed dialogue tree, illustrating the two opener questions (sadness Q1 and anhedonia Q4) and their negative- and positive-response follow-up branches. The complete tree spanning all seven clusters appears in Appendix A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Per-persona mean BDI-II score comparison between the baseline (GPT-5-nano interviewer, 10 runs) and hybrid (Gemma 27B interviewer, 20 runs) configurations across Personas 7 to 20. The dashed line indicates 𝑦 = 𝑥 (perfect agreement), and the Pearson coefficient of determination is 𝑅2 = 0.885. Points below the diagonal correspond to personas where the hybrid produced lower mean BDI-II estimates than the baseline, with… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Symptom flagging frequency across Personas 7 to 20 for the baseline and hybrid configurations. (A) Heatmap of % samples in each pool that listed the symptom as one of the four key symptoms. (B) Difference in symptom hit rates between hybrid and baseline. The baseline m…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Final submitted runs per persona compared against ground truth. Blue bars show the BDI-II score of the baseline-derived Run 1 (GPT-5-nano interviewer). Orange bars show the mean of the two hybrid-derived submissions, Runs 2 and 3 (Gemma 27B interviewer). Green bars sho…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Searing, Depression affects about 280 million people worldwide, The Washington Post, 2022

    L. Searing, Depression affects about 280 million people worldwide, The Washington Post, 2022. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/15672/

    2022

  2. [2]

    Faisal-Cury, C

    A. Faisal-Cury, C. Ziebold, D. M. d. O. Rodrigues, A. Matijasevich, Depression underdiagnosis: Prevalence and associated factors. A population-based study, Journal of Psychiatric Research 151 (2022) 157–165. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.04.025

    doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.04.025 2022

  3. [3]

    A. T. Beck, R. A. Steer, G. K. Brown, Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory–II, Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, TX, 1996

    1996

  4. [4]

    M. Omar, I. Levkovich, Exploring the efficacy and potential of large language models for depression: A systematic review, Journal of Affective Disorders 371 (2025) 234–244. doi: 10.1016/j.jad. 2024.11.052

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jad 2025

  5. [5]

    Aragón, A

    M. Aragón, A. P. Lopez-Monroy, M. Montes-y Gómez, D. E. Losada, Online expressions, offline struggles: Using social media to identify depression-related symptoms, Online Social Networks and Media 50 (2025) 100338. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2025.100338

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Z. Chen, J. Deng, J. Zhou, J. Wu, T. Qian, M. Huang, Depression detection in clinical interviews with LLM-empowered structural element graph, in: Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technolo- gies (Volume 1: Long Papers), 2024, pp. 8181–8194. doi:10.18653/v1/2024...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.452 2024

  7. [7]

    Miyaguchi, D

    A. Miyaguchi, D. Guecha, Y. Chiu, S. Gaur, DS@GT at eRisk 2025: From prompts to pre- dictions, benchmarking early depression detection with conversational agent-based assess- ments and temporal attention models, in: Working Notes of CLEF 2025 – Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, volume 4038 ofCEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2025. URL: https: //ceur-w...

    2025

  8. [8]

    A. M. Mármol-Romero, M. García-Vega, M. A. García-Cumbreras, A. Montejo-Ráez, SINAI at eRisk@CLEF 2025: Transformer-based and conversational strategies for depression detection, in: Working Notes of CLEF 2025 – Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum, volume 4038 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2025. URL: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-4038/paper_130.pdf

    2025

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Dang, C. Qian, X. Luo, J. Fan, Z. Xie, R. Shi, W. Chen, C. Yang, X. Che, Y. Tian, X. Xiong, L. Han, Z. Liu, M. Sun, Multi-agent collaboration via evolving orchestration, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2025. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.1...

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    URL: https://openai.com/index/ introducing-gpt-5-4-mini-and-nano/

    OpenAI, Introducing GPT-5.4 mini and nano, OpenAI, 2026. URL: https://openai.com/index/ introducing-gpt-5-4-mini-and-nano/

    2026

  3. [11]

    URL: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2503.19786

    Gemma Team, Gemma 3 technical report, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19786, 2025. URL: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2503.19786

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Huang, W

    L. Huang, W. Yu, W. Ma, W. Zhong, Z. Feng, H. Wang, Q. Chen, W. Peng, X. Feng, B. Qin, T. Liu, A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (2025). URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2...

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Z. Li, J. Peng, Y. Wang, Y. Cao, T. Shen, M. Zhang, L. Su, S. Wu, Y. Wu, Y. Wang, Y. Wang, W. Hu, J. Li, S. Wang, J. Xiao, D. Xiong, ChatSOP: An SOP-guided MCTS planning framework for controllable LLM dialogue agents, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03884, 2024. URL: https://arxiv.o...

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Robertson, H

    S. Robertson, H. Zaragoza, The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond, Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 3 (2009) 333–389

    2009

  7. [15]

    Saad-Falcon, E

    J. Saad-Falcon, E. K. Buchanan, M. F. Chen, T.-H. Huang, B. McLaughlin, T. Bhathal, S. Zhu, B. Athiwaratkun, F. Sala, S. Linderman, A. Mirhoseini, C. Ré, Weaver: Closing the generation- verification gap with weak verifiers, Hazy Research Blog, 2025. URL: https://hazyresearch.s...

    2025

  8. [16]

    Perez, J

    A. Perez, J. Parapar, X. Wang, F. Crestani, Overview of erisk 2026 early risk prediction on the internet: Symptom ranking and conversational approaches for depression and adhd (extended overview), in: Working Notes of the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum (CLEF 2026)...

    2026

  9. [17]

    Perez, J

    A. Perez, J. Parapar, X. Wang, F. Crestani, Overview of erisk 2026 early risk prediction on the internet: Symptom ranking and conversational approaches for depression and adhd, in: Experi- mental IR Meets Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Interaction - 17th International Con...

    2026

  10. [18]

    How have you been feeling in general lately? Has your mood been pretty steady, or has it been kind of all over the place?

    PACE, Partnership for an Advanced Computing Environment (PACE), 2017. URL: http://www. pace.gatech.edu. A. Full Dialogue Tree The precomputed dialogue tree is organized into seven symptom clusters. The interview always opens with theMood & Pleasurecluster (Cluster 1), where sa...

    2017

  11. [19]

    This is a strict competition rule

    Never mention depression, mental health, diagnoses, or clinical terms. This is a strict competition rule. Personas are designed to deflect such questions

  12. [20]

    You speak first on the first turn with a warm, casual greeting

  13. [21]

    You are a supportive conversationalist

    Be natural and empathetic. You are a supportive conversationalist. Validate feelings. Reflect back what you hear. Transition smoothly between topics

  14. [22]

    No JSON, no metadata, no reasoning

    Output ONLY your message text. No JSON, no metadata, no reasoning. Just the words you would say to the persona

  15. [23]

    A separate system tells you which topics to explore

    Follow the guidance below. A separate system tells you which topics to explore. Work those topics into natural conversation -- never read them as a list

  16. [24]

    You may combine 2-3 related topics into one natural question, but never rapid-fire a list of questions

    One question at a time. You may combine 2-3 related topics into one natural question, but never rapid-fire a list of questions

  17. [25]

    You mentioned feeling tired -- I’m curious, how has your sleep been?

    Keep messages concise. 2-4 sentences is ideal. Occasionally longer for validation + transition. ## Conversational Techniques - Transitions: Link to what they just said. "You mentioned feeling tired -- I’m curious, how has your sleep been?" - Validation: Brief acknowledgments: ...

  18. [26]

    Current Focus -- guidance on which topics to explore or whether to wrap up

  19. [27]

    Conversation So Far -- the full conversation history Generate your next message based on these. D. Scorer Agent System Prompt The scorer agent receives this system prompt plus the full conversation transcript after each interviewer turn. It returns a structured JSON object wit...

  20. [28]

    Read the entire transcript carefully

  21. [29]

    For each of the 21 BDI-II items, determine: - score (0-3): Based on the rubric for that item - confidence (0.0-1.0): How confident you are in this score - evidence: Quote or paraphrase the transcript text that supports your score

  22. [30]

    Think through each symptom carefully before assigning a score

  23. [31]

    No relevant discussion in transcript

    If the transcript provides NO evidence for a symptom, score it 0 with confidence 0.0 and evidence "No relevant discussion in transcript."

  24. [32]

    If the transcript provides SOME evidence but it’s ambiguous, assign your best estimate with confidence 0.2-0.5 and explain the ambiguity

  25. [33]

    Do not infer beyond the text

    Base scores ONLY on what the persona actually said. Do not infer beyond the text

  26. [34]

    sometimes

    Frequency mapping: - "sometimes" / "occasionally" -> score 1 - "a lot" / "most of the time" / "every hour or two" -> score 2 - "all the time" / "constantly" / "all day" / "every day" -> score 3

  27. [35]

    It’s constant

    Emotional expressions count: treat emotional descriptions (wanting to smash things, feeling rage, lump in throat) as direct evidence. ## BDI-II Scoring Rubric (abbreviated) q01_sadness: 0=none; 1=occasional/mild; 2=frequent/pervasive (daily); 3=overwhelming/unbearable. Daily o...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.