Maria Liakata

Hiba Arnaout, Anmol Goel, H. Andrew Schwartz et al.

Although artificial intelligence (AI) shows growing promise for mental health care, current approaches to evaluating AI tools in this domain remain fragmented and poorly aligned with clinical practice, social context, and first-hand user experience. This paper argues for a rethinking of responsible evaluation -- what is measured, by whom, and for what purpose -- by introducing an interdisciplinary framework that integrates clinical soundness, social context, and equity, providing a structured basis for evaluation. Through an analysis of 135 recent *CL publications, we identify recurring limitations, including over-reliance on generic metrics that do not capture clinical validity, therapeutic appropriateness, or user experience, limited participation from mental health professionals, and insufficient attention to safety and equity. To address these gaps, we propose a taxonomy of AI mental health support types -- assessment-, intervention-, and information synthesis-oriented -- each with distinct risks and evaluative requirements, and illustrate its use through case studies.

Mahmud Elahi Akhter, Federico Ruggeri, Iman Munire Bilal et al.

Structured claim decomposition is often proposed as a solution for verifying complex, multi-faceted claims, yet empirical results have been inconsistent. We argue that these inconsistencies stem from two overlooked bottlenecks: evidence alignment and sub-claim error profiles. To better understand these factors, we introduce a new dataset of real-world complex claims, featuring temporally bounded evidence and human-annotated sub-claim evidence spans. We evaluate decomposition under two evidence alignment setups: Sub-claim Aligned Evidence (SAE) and Repeated Claim-level Evidence (SRE). Our results reveal that decomposition brings significant performance improvement only when evidence is granular and strictly aligned. By contrast, standard setups that rely on repeated claim-level evidence (SRE) fail to improve and often degrade performance as shown across different datasets and domains (PHEMEPlus, MMM-Fact, COVID-Fact). Furthermore, we demonstrate that in the presence of noisy sub-claim labels, the nature of the error ends up determining downstream robustness. We find that conservative "abstention" significantly reduces error propagation compared to aggressive but incorrect predictions. These findings suggest that future claim decomposition frameworks must prioritize precise evidence synthesis and calibrate the label bias of sub-claim verification models.

Mingzi Cao, Xingwei Tan, Mahmud Elahi Akhter et al.

Deduction, induction, and abduction are fundamental reasoning paradigms, core for human logical thinking. Although improving Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning has attracted significant research efforts, the extent to which the fundamental paradigms induce generalization has yet to be systematically explored. In this study, we shed light on how the interplay between these core paradigms influences LLMs' reasoning behavior. To this end, we first collect a new dataset of reasoning trajectories from symbolic tasks, each targeting one of the three fundamental paradigms, to abstract from concrete world knowledge. Then, we investigate effective ways for inducing these skills into LLMs. We experiment with a battery of methods including simple fine-tuning, and more complex approaches to increase model depth, or transform a dense model to a mixture-of-experts. We comprehensively evaluate induced models on realistic out-of-domain tasks, that are entirely formulated in natural language and contain real-world knowledge. Our results reveal that our approach yields strong generalizability with substantial performance gains (up to $14.60$) across realistic tasks.