Nitay Calderon

Yael Badian, Yaakov Ophir, Refael Tikochinski et al.

The promising research on Artificial Intelligence usages in suicide prevention has principal gaps, including black box methodologies, inadequate outcome measures, and scarce research on non-verbal inputs, such as social media images (despite their popularity today, in our digital era). This study addresses these gaps and combines theory-driven and bottom-up strategies to construct a hybrid and interpretable prediction model of valid suicide risk from images. The lead hypothesis was that images contain valuable information about emotions and interpersonal relationships, two central concepts in suicide-related treatments and theories. The dataset included 177,220 images by 841 Facebook users who completed a gold-standard suicide scale. The images were represented with CLIP, a state-of-the-art algorithm, which was utilized, unconventionally, to extract predefined features that served as inputs to a simple logistic-regression prediction model (in contrast to complex neural networks). The features addressed basic and theory-driven visual elements using everyday language (e.g., bright photo, photo of sad people). The results of the hybrid model (that integrated theory-driven and bottom-up methods) indicated high prediction performance that surpassed common bottom-up algorithms, thus providing a first proof that images (alone) can be leveraged to predict validated suicide risk. Corresponding with the lead hypothesis, at-risk users had images with increased negative emotions and decreased belonginess. The results are discussed in the context of non-verbal warning signs of suicide. Notably, the study illustrates the advantages of hybrid models in such complicated tasks and provides simple and flexible prediction strategies that could be utilized to develop real-life monitoring tools of suicide.

Shir Lissak, Nitay Calderon, Geva Shenkman et al.

Queer youth face increased mental health risks, such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Hindered by negative stigma, they often avoid seeking help and rely on online resources, which may provide incompatible information. Although access to a supportive environment and reliable information is invaluable, many queer youth worldwide have no access to such support. However, this could soon change due to the rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT. This paper aims to comprehensively explore the potential of LLMs to revolutionize emotional support for queers. To this end, we conduct a qualitative and quantitative analysis of LLM's interactions with queer-related content. To evaluate response quality, we develop a novel ten-question scale that is inspired by psychological standards and expert input. We apply this scale to score several LLMs and human comments to posts where queer youth seek advice and share experiences. We find that LLM responses are supportive and inclusive, outscoring humans. However, they tend to be generic, not empathetic enough, and lack personalization, resulting in nonreliable and potentially harmful advice. We discuss these challenges, demonstrate that a dedicated prompt can improve the performance, and propose a blueprint of an LLM-supporter that actively (but sensitively) seeks user context to provide personalized, empathetic, and reliable responses. Our annotated dataset is available for further research.

Omer Nahum, Nitay Calderon, Orgad Keller et al.

NLP benchmarks rely on standardized datasets for training and evaluating models and are crucial for advancing the field. Traditionally, expert annotations ensure high-quality labels; however, the cost of expert annotation does not scale well with the growing demand for larger datasets required by modern models. While crowd-sourcing provides a more scalable solution, it often comes at the expense of annotation precision and consistency. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities to enhance the annotation process, particularly for detecting label errors in existing datasets. In this work, we consider the recent approach of LLM-as-a-judge, leveraging an ensemble of LLMs to flag potentially mislabeled examples. We conduct a case study on four factual consistency datasets from the TRUE benchmark, spanning diverse NLP tasks, and on SummEval, which uses Likert-scale ratings of summary quality across multiple dimensions. We empirically analyze the labeling quality of existing datasets and compare expert, crowd-sourced, and LLM-based annotations in terms of the agreement, label quality, and efficiency, demonstrating the strengths and limitations of each annotation method. Our findings reveal a substantial number of label errors, which, when corrected, induce a significant upward shift in reported model performance. This suggests that many of the LLMs' so-called mistakes are due to label errors rather than genuine model failures. Additionally, we discuss the implications of mislabeled data and propose methods to mitigate them in training to improve performance.

Lotem Peled-Cohen, Maya Zadok, Nitay Calderon et al.

Cognitive decline often surfaces in language years before diagnosis. It is frequently non-experts, such as those closest to the patient, who first sense a change and raise concern. As LLMs become integrated into daily communication and used over prolonged periods, it may even be an LLM that notices something is off. But what exactly do they notice--and should be noticing--when making that judgment? This paper investigates how dementia is perceived through language by non-experts. We presented transcribed picture descriptions to non-expert humans and LLMs, asking them to intuitively judge whether each text was produced by someone healthy or with dementia. We introduce an explainable method that uses LLMs to extract high-level, expert-guided features representing these picture descriptions, and use logistic regression to model human and LLM perceptions and compare with clinical diagnoses. Our analysis reveals that human perception of dementia is inconsistent and relies on a narrow, and sometimes misleading, set of cues. LLMs, by contrast, draw on a richer, more nuanced feature set that aligns more closely with clinical patterns. Still, both groups show a tendency toward false negatives, frequently overlooking dementia cases. Through our interpretable framework and the insights it provides, we hope to help non-experts better recognize the linguistic signs that matter.