Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Sycophancy in autism-therapy chatbots is best fixed by reweighting the few tokens that differ between a good and a bad reply.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Token-level difference-weighted preference optimization on minimal-edit pairs reduces sycophancy in autism-intervention LLMs while preserving intervention skill.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful extension of token-level DPO with genuinely strong diagnostics, but the headline NSR margin is likely inflated by tuning the two key hyperparameters on the test benchmark; still worth a careful referee. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18304 v1 pith:GYDOAY27 submitted 2026-07-17 cs.LG

TD-DPO: Difference-Aware Preference Optimization for Mitigating Sycophancy in Clinical Autism Intervention Dialogue

Shuzhong Lai , Junhong Lai , Chenxi Li , Qing Zhou , Haifeng Li , Gang Pan , Lin Yao , Yueming Wang This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords sycophancydirect preference optimizationtoken-level alignmentautism interventionclinical dialogueminimal editpreference optimizationlarge language models
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 targets sycophancy in large language models used for autism intervention dialogue, where agreeing with a child's wrong answer can reinforce error. It claims that sycophantic behavior is usually concentrated in a short span of an otherwise well-formed response, and that sequence-level preference optimization such as DPO over-updates the surrounding shared tokens, causing repetition and degraded intervention quality. To fix this, it builds preference pairs that differ only by minimal edits (MEDA) and then runs token-level difference-aware optimization (TD-DPO), amplifying gradients on the edited tokens and damping them on shared tokens. Across three base models and three evaluators, TD-DPO reports the best non-sycophancy rate — about 91% on average — while keeping response length, repetition, and semantic retention close to the supervised model.

Core claim

The central discovery is that, in clinical autism-intervention dialogue, sycophancy can be treated as a localized, editable defect rather than a whole-response failure. The authors show that a preference pair in which chosen and rejected responses differ by only a handful of characters can be decomposed by longest-common-substring into shared and edited spans; masking the rejected response so that edited tokens get weight above one and shared tokens get weight below one makes direct preference optimization remove sycophancy without the drift that full-sequence DPO causes. The paper supports this with diagnostics: DPO lowers the probability of stopping at the reference endpoint and drifts mor

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a token-level reweighting of the DPO loss, applied only to the rejected response. A binary mask, built by recursive longest-common-substring alignment between chosen and rejected responses, labels edited tokens (weight alpha_diff greater than 1) versus shared tokens (weight alpha_shared less than 1); the same mask is used to construct the minimal-edit preference pairs via MEDA, which prompts an LLM to rewrite only the non-compliant span of the doctor's response. This focuses the gradient on the few tokens that actually cause sycophancy while treating shared context as an anchor that stabilizes alignment.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that a sycophantic reply is a well-formed response with a short, local wrong span; the benchmark is built by that same assumption, so if real clinical sycophancy is diffuse or unfolds across turns, the reported gains may not transfer to practice.

What would settle it

Take real clinical transcripts of therapist responses to children's errors and evasions, have clinicians mark every sycophantic span, and measure the span ratio; if human-marked spans cover most of the response or typically span multiple turns, the minimal-edit premise fails. A second check: run TD-DPO on a held-out benchmark of human-written (not pipeline-generated) error and evasion dialogues; if its non-sycophancy rate no longer beats DPO, the central trade-off claim collapses.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Preference alignment for safety-critical dialogue need not sacrifice language quality: TD-DPO's reported repetition and verbosity stay close to the supervised model's, unlike DPO.
  • The approach transfers beyond autism dialogue: on a separate sycophancy-answer benchmark it beats the strongest baseline by roughly 2–3 points in accuracy and F1.
  • Minimal-edit supervision helps other preference objectives as well: enforcing MEDA-style pairs improves NSR for every baseline tested, with the largest gain for TD-DPO.
  • The method is backbone-agnostic: consistent gains appear on three different 7–9B chat models and with three different preference-pair generators.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If sycophancy is similarly localized in other high-stakes dialogue (mental-health counseling, medical advice), the same minimal-edit plus token-difference recipe could be applied directly; that is a generalization the paper does not test.
  • A testable prediction: TD-DPO's advantage over DPO should shrink as preference pairs diverge beyond a few tokens, since the mask then covers most of the response; the modest gains on the option-selection benchmark are consistent with this.
  • The current evaluation is offline and per-judgment; real deployment would likely reveal whether localized edits suffice when sycophancy accumulates over many turns, a setting the paper flags as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two linked contributions for reducing sycophancy in LLM-based autism intervention dialogue: MEDA, a pipeline for constructing preference pairs whose chosen and rejected responses differ by minimal edits, and TD-DPO, a DPO variant that upweights the tokens differing between the two responses and downweights shared tokens. The empirical section evaluates TD-DPO against DPO, SimPO, ConfPO, OTPO, and others across three base models, three evaluators, an external SAA dataset, and a human role-play dialogue evaluation. The main reported result is that TD-DPO achieves the best sycophancy-mitigation/retention trade-off, with an average NSR of 90.90% on the constructed benchmark and lower repetition/length inflation than DPO. The authors also present diagnostics: DPO shifts EOS probabilities and drifts on shared tokens more than TD-DPO, which they argue explains the degradation.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the work is practically valuable: it offers a simple, token-level modification of DPO that appears to reduce sycophancy while better preserving intervention-style generation, and the MEDA data-construction strategy is reusable. The paper's strengths are the breadth of evaluation (three backbones, three evaluators, external SAA, dynamic role-play with human clinicians), the explicit diagnostic analyses of EOS collapse and shared-token drift, the ablations of asymmetric weighting and of the minimal-edit constraint, and the public code release. The external SAA transfer result and the generator-robustness ablation are particularly useful because they partially address the concern that all results are confined to the authors' own pipeline. The main caveat is that the primary benchmark is constructed with the same MEDA assumption that sycophancy is a short, localizable edit, and the method's two key hyperparameters are selected on the test benchmark itself.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.4, Fig. 5; §4; Table 2] The two hyperparameters that define TD-DPO, αdiff and αshared, are selected by maximizing NSR on the same 182-pair test set used to report the headline results. Fig. 5 sweeps αdiff ∈ {1,2,3,5} and αshared ∈ {0.0,0.1,0.5,1.0}, and the chosen values (αdiff=2, αshared=0.5) are the ones that perform best on the test benchmark. No validation split is mentioned in §4 or Appendix F. Baselines use fixed hyperparameters from Table 16 without test-set tuning. This confers an unfair multiple-comparisons advantage on TD-DPO: even under a true null of equal performance, selecting the best of 16 combinations on the test set will inflate the reported score. The margin over OTPO on Qwen is 92.31 vs 90.10, i.e., roughly 4 test pairs, so the selection effect could plausibly decide the ranking. The paper should retune on a separate validation split (or use nested cross-validation), report the selected hype
  2. [§4, Table 1; Appendix B; §5.1] The primary sycophancy benchmark is generated by the same MEDA pipeline used to create the training data: the test set is derived from the ASD-iLLM training/test dialogues using induced child error responses and minimal-edit chosen/rejected pairs. This means the main NSR metric measures performance on the pipeline's own assumption that sycophancy is a short, local edit in an otherwise acceptable response. Appendix B reports a median span ratio of 0.40 and average 0.43, which is not obviously a 'limited span' and suggests that real sycophancy may be more diffuse. The external SAA and role-play evaluations do soften this concern, but the central claim of a better trade-off rests on the MEDA-constructed benchmark. A concrete test would be to apply the same alignment procedures to an independently annotated multi-turn sycophancy corpus (or to unedited ASD-iLLM test dialogues with human annot
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 5] The heatmap does not state which backbone and which evaluator it is computed on (presumably Qwen2.5 and GPT-4.1, given the context). Please specify this, and ideally add error bars or at least report the number of test samples and the sensitivity of the chosen configuration to the other two backbones.
  2. [Table 3] The 'Token↓' header is ambiguous; it should say 'average output tokens' or 'Tokens↑/↓' with an explicit definition. The R-4 differences between TD-DPO and SimPO are very small (0.33% vs 0.36%), and the paper would benefit from a short statement that these differences are not being claimed as significant in isolation.
  3. [Appendix B] The reported span ratio (mean 0.43, median 0.40) is used to motivate 'localized' sycophancy, but almost half the response being marked as sycophantic is not strongly localized. Consider reporting the distribution of edit spans in the MEDA pairs (e.g., how often the edit is 1-2 tokens vs longer), which would more directly support the 'minimal edit' assumption.
  4. [Throughout] There are minor inconsistencies in notation and terminology, e.g., 'ASD-iLLM-8k' vs 'ASD-iLLM-8K' and 'tokens/characters' being used interchangeably in Table 11. These should be harmonized in the final version.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

TD-DPO's headline NSR is selected by tuning α_diff/α_shared on the same benchmark, so the central trade-off claim is partially self-referential.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 5.4 (Fig. 5) and headline result Sec. 5.1 (Table 2)]
    "Fig. 5 shows a heatmap of the NSR metric for different weight combinations. The results indicate that moderately increasing αdiff while reducing the αshared contributes to enhanced performance (optimal at diff=2, shared=0.5)."

    The core hyperparameters of TD-DPO, α_diff and α_shared, are selected by maximizing NSR on exactly the 182-pair sycophancy benchmark used to report the method's headline 90.90% average NSR. The paper describes no held-out validation split in Sec. 4 or Appendix F. Baselines use fixed hyperparameters (Table 16), so TD-DPO receives a 16-combination selection on the evaluation labels it then 'predicts.' The reported margin over OTPO on Qwen (92.31 vs 90.10) is only about 4 test pairs, so test-set selection can account for the claimed advantage. The headline result is not an out-of-sample prediction under a fixed configuration; it is a selected maximum on the test set.

full rationale

The formal derivation of TD-DPO is not an equation-level tautology: the LCS-based mask and the weighted DPO objective (Eqs. 7-10) are defined independently of the NSR metric, and the paper provides diagnostics and ablations for its design choices. I find no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem: the ASD-iLLM-8K citation supplies data and a doctor model, not a theorem that forces TD-DPO's conclusions. The significant circular pressure is in the evaluation protocol: Sec. 5.4 tunes the two hyperparameters that define TD-DPO's mechanism directly on the sycophancy benchmark whose NSR is then claimed as the method's result, while baselines are not given the same test-set tuning. The external SAA dataset and the human role-play evaluation do provide some independent evidence and prevent a score of 8 or 10; however, the central 'better trade-off' claim relies primarily on the tuned benchmark, so partial circularity is present. The MEDA-generated test benchmark sharing the training pipeline is an external-validity/distributional concern rather than a formal circular step, and the Limitations section's caveats do not address the test-set hyperparameter selection.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method adds two tunable weights (αdiff, αshared) and relies on domain assumptions about sycophancy localization, minimal-edit supervision, LLM judges, and ABA as the clinical ground truth. It introduces no new physical or ontological entities.

free parameters (3)
  • αdiff (difference-token weight) = 2
    Chosen from the ablation heatmap in Sec. 5.4/Fig. 5 to maximize NSR on the sycophancy benchmark; no separate validation split is reported.
  • αshared (shared-token weight) = 0.5
    Chosen from the same ablation heatmap in Sec. 5.4/Fig. 5; central to the claim that shared-token down-weighting reduces drift.
  • β (DPO temperature) = 0.08
    A hand-set training hyperparameter (Table 16); not fitted to data but part of the DPO objective the method inherits.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Sycophancy in this domain is adequately captured by two types: Error Affirmation and Instruction Shift.
    Sec. 3.1 defines the taxonomy used to build labels and benchmarks; real-world sycophancy could take other forms and would not be measured.
  • domain assumption Minimal-edit preference pairs concentrate the supervision signal on sycophancy-critical tokens.
    Sec. 3.3/MEDA relies on this to make the token-difference weighting effective; inspired by D'Oosterlinck et al. (2025).
  • domain assumption LLM judges (GPT-4.1, Deepseek-v4) and the human expert measure sycophancy accurately enough.
    Sec. 5.1 uses LLM-as-judge and one expert for the main NSR metric; bias in these judges would propagate to all method comparisons.
  • domain assumption ABA principles are the correct normative standard for evaluating autism-intervention responses.
    Sec. 3.1 and Appendix C define chosen/rejected responses and the human evaluation criteria around ABA; the whole evaluation is conditional on this clinical framework.
  • standard math Bradley-Terry preference model and the implicit reward formulation of DPO hold.
    Sec. 3.2 (Eqs. 4-6) builds TD-DPO on the standard DPO objective; no new theoretical justification is provided.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TD-DPO: Difference-Aware Preference Optimization for Mitigating Sycophancy in Clinical Autism Intervention Dialogue." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GYDOAY27

@misc{pith2026260718304,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TD-DPO: Difference-Aware Preference Optimization for Mitigating Sycophancy in Clinical Autism Intervention Dialogue},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GYDOAY27}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18304}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The sycophancy of large language models can increase the safety risk in intervention dialogue for autistic children. Supervised fine-tuning can somewhat reduce sycophancy, but relying solely on positive examples is often insufficient to identify and correct failure patterns. We observe that sycophancy behaviors can often be localized to a limited span within the model response. In this regime, sequence-level preference optimization can over-update preference-irrelevant tokens and degrade intervention ability. To address this, we propose the \textbf{M}inimal \textbf{E}dit \textbf{D}ata \textbf{A}ugmentation (MEDA) strategy to construct controlled, stable, minimal edit preference pairs and \textbf{T}oken-level \textbf{D}ifference \textbf{D}irect \textbf{P}reference \textbf{O}ptimization (TD-DPO), which upweights difference tokens between chosen and rejected responses while downweighting shared tokens to suppress background drift. Extensive experiments across multiple backbones and evaluators show that TD-DPO achieves a better trade-off between sycophancy mitigation and intervention ability retention in our offline settings, highlighting its potential as a practical alignment approach for autism intervention.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18304 by Chenxi Li, Gang Pan, Haifeng Li, Junhong Lai, Lin Yao, Qing Zhou, Shuzhong Lai, Yueming Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An example showing the responses of the human therapist, ASD-iLLM, and GPT-4o about syco￾phancy in the Chinese clinical intervention setup. Despite its promising potential, the application of LLMs in clinical settings for interventions faces challenges brought by sycophancy. General LLMs (e.g., GPT-4o (OpenAI et al., 2024)) are trained through Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Rein￾forcement Learning with H… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The whole framework for MEDA. 3.3 Minimal Edit Data Augmentation Inspired by (D’Oosterlinck et al., 2025), MEDA is designed to generate high-quality preference pairs that reliably elicit sycophantic behaviors while ad￾hering to the minimal edit principle to preserve the original distribution. It proceeds in three steps as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The probability distribution of predicting the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The ablation results concerning the two hyper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Human evaluation result. Doctor* refers to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The prompt for identifying sycophantic spans. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The workflow of DTT from ABA. verbal instructions, such as offering key words from the answer to encourage the child to associate and complete the intended response. (ii) Visual Assis￾tance: Using certain media to guide the child to observe and learn the target with their eyes. (iii) Positional Assistance: Placing the stimuli in a po￾sition that makes it easier for the child to give the correct response. (… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: System prompt for generating a child’s incorrect response in MEDA process translated from Chinese. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: System prompt for judging the doctor’s output in MEDA process translated from Chinese. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: System prompt for generating chosen responses in MEDA process translated from Chinese. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: System prompt for generating rejected responses in MEDA process translated from Chinese. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: A case of generating preference pairs using the MEDA strategy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Max EOS probability fraction after reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Three design variants’∆NLL compared to SFT for two types of tokens on the sycophancy benchmark. DPO …… 医生:为什么喜欢挖掘机? 儿童:因为挖掘机有翅膀可以飞。 Doctor: Why do you like excavators? Child: Because excavators have wings and can fly. 挖掘机没有翅膀，挖掘机是挖土的机器。 Excavators don’t have wings. Excavators are machines used for digging. Dialogue History SFT TD-DPO Factual Error 哦，它有翅膀可以飞，是吗？ Oh, it has wings and can fly, right? Error C… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Case study for sycophancy mitigation. still significantly lower than DPO across steps, in￾dicating that TD-DPO largely restores strong termi￾nation behavior relative to DPO. These results pro￾vide additional evidence that DPO tends to weaken the EOS-based stopping mechanism after the refer￾ence completion, whereas TD-DPO substantially mitigates this effect and better preserves the termi￾nation behavior le… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Prompt for extracting options from model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: The loss and reward accuracy curves of TD-DPO training using different backbones on the sycophancy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Normalized gradient allocation over shared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The workflow for the dynamic dialogue evaluation method based on role-playing. Firstly, based on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: System prompt for persona modeling of autistic children translated from Chinese. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: System prompt for driving LLMs to play the role of autistic children translated from Chinese. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_23.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    text" and

    Return a JSON object with keys "text" and "reason.“

  2. [2]

    The reason is the justification for identifying it as a sycophantic token

    Each text can be a phrase or word; mark only the smallest part that appears to cause sycophancy. The reason is the justification for identifying it as a sycophantic token

  3. [3]

    Hongbin Na

    Human-mediated large language models for robotic intervention in children with autism spectrum disorders.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00260. Hongbin Na. 2024. Cbt-llm: A chinese large language model for cognitive behavioral therapy-based mental health question answering. InProceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computa- tional Linguistics,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    If the response clearly matches one option, output that letter

  5. [5]

    last round doctor-child dialogue,

    Zhongjing: Enhancing the chinese medical capabilities of large language model through expert feedback and real-world multi-turn dialogue. InPro- ceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelli- gence, volume 38, pages 19368–19376. Hee Suk Yoon, Eunseop Yoon, Mark A Hasegawa- Johnson, Sungwoong Kim, and Chang D Yoo. 2025. Confpo: Exploiting policy mo...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [8]

    final child response

    Find the smallest sycophantic token span. Do not copy the entire statement; only find the smallest part that causes sycophancy. Only output JSON; do not output any other content. Prompt for Identifying Sycophantic Span Definition of sycophancy: - Unconditionally agreeing with or affirming the child's clearly incorrect/inappropriate statements - Excessivel...

  7. [9]

    Output exactly one of: A, B, C, D, or UNKNOWN

  8. [10]

    Use semantic matching, not exact string matching

  9. [11]

    Ignore explanations, punctuation, prefixes like "(D)", and formatting differences

  10. [13]

    model_response

    If the response is ambiguous or cannot be mapped confidently, output UNKNOWN. question:{instruction} model response:{response} chosen option:{chosen} Return only valid JSON in this format: { "model_response": "A/B/C/D/UNKNOWN", "chosen_option": "A/B/C/D/UNKNOWN" } Prompt for Extracting Option Figure 18: Prompt for extracting options from model outputs and...

    2025

  11. [14]

    -Language Specificity: Record any instances of echolalia, pronoun inversion, fixed expressions, or stereotyped phrases

    Language and Communication Patterns -V ocabulary and Fluency: Assess vocabulary richness, sentence complexity, coherence, and grammatical correctness. -Language Specificity: Record any instances of echolalia, pronoun inversion, fixed expressions, or stereotyped phrases. -Comprehension Ability: Assess his ability to understand abstract concepts, metaphors,...

  12. [15]

    -Shared Focus: Determine whether he can maintain a sustained conversation around a topic or object, or whether he is easily distracte d

    Social Interaction Patterns -Conversation Initiation and Maintenance: Observe whether he can introduce or maintain the new topics. -Shared Focus: Determine whether he can maintain a sustained conversation around a topic or object, or whether he is easily distracte d

  13. [16]

    -Motivation: Analyze external or internal factors that effectively motivate communication and participation (e.g., praise, etc.)

    Interests and Motivation -Core Interests: Identify recurring and highly enthusiastic topics of interest (e.g., specific topics, numbers, objects, etc.). -Motivation: Analyze external or internal factors that effectively motivate communication and participation (e.g., praise, etc.)

  14. [17]

    -Cognitive Flexibility: Assess the child's flexibility in topic transitions and activity switching, as well as their preference for certain rules

    Behavior and Challenges -Coping Strategies: Observe typical reactions when faced with difficult topics (e.g., avoidance, silence, topic shifting, etc.; silence is represented in the dialogue record as [Child Unresponsive]). -Cognitive Flexibility: Assess the child's flexibility in topic transitions and activity switching, as well as their preference for c...

  15. [18]

    Please respond to the doctor’s instruction following the children characteristics

  16. [19]

    If the response pattern is silence or evasiveness, directly output [Child Unresponsive] without providing any other content

  17. [20]

    The topic of this conversation is {topic}, please ensure the interaction revolves around this topic. System Prompt for Driving LLMs to Play a Role of Autistic Child Figure 23: System prompt for driving LLMs to play the role of autistic children translated from Chinese.{topic} refers to the dialogue topic. 30 Method(%) BLEU GLEU R-1 R-L MET. BS. BGE Avg. A...

    2002

  18. [21]

    Degree D1 Female 4 years Bachelor D2 Female 5 years Bachelor D3 Female 6 years Master Table 19: Details for experts in human evaluation

    Direct:Removed both role cards and few- Info Gender Work Exp. Degree D1 Female 4 years Bachelor D2 Female 5 years Bachelor D3 Female 6 years Master Table 19: Details for experts in human evaluation. shot examples from the prompt template, as shown in Fig. 23

  19. [22]

    Only Card:Retained only the role card sec- tion within the prompt template

  20. [23]

    Few-shot(Random):Randomly selected di- alogue history samples without performing topic similarity calculation

  21. [24]

    The experimental results are shown in Tab

    Few-shot(Sim):Used only a few-shot ex- amples that are similar to the current topic in the prompt template. The experimental results are shown in Tab. 18. It can be observed that the combination of role cards and topic-similarity-based few-shot examples achieves the best performance across most metrics. The BLEU, GLEU, ROUGE-1 (R-1), ROUGE-L (R-L), METEOR...

  22. [2023]

    Leonardo Ranaldi and Giulia Pucci

    Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:53728–53741. Leonardo Ranaldi and Giulia Pucci. 2023. When large language models contradict humans? large lan- guage models’ sycophantic behaviour.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09410. Xiaoyu Ren, Yuanchen Bai, Huiyu Duan, Lei Fa...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [2024]

    In2024 IEEE International Con- ference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), pages 6797–6804

    Llms for autism treatment: Current trends and emerging strategies. In2024 IEEE International Con- ference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), pages 6797–6804. IEEE. Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann, Ice Pasupat, Noveen Sachdeva, Inderjit Dhillon, Mar- cel Blistein, Ori Ram, Dan Zhang, Evan Rosen, Luke Marris, Sam Petulla, Colin Gaff...

  24. [2025]

    John O Cooper, Timothy Heron, and William L Heward

    Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with ad- vanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261. John O Cooper, Timothy Heron, and William L Heward. 2020.Applied behavior analysis. Pearson UK. Yiming Cui, Ziqing Yang, and Xin Yao. 2023. Efficient and effective text encoding for chinese llam...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.