arXiv subjects

Harneet Singh Khanuja

Publications and source records attributed to Harneet Singh Khanuja.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

Modeling Saliency Dataset Bias

Recent advances in image-based saliency prediction are approaching gold standard performance levels on existing benchmarks. Despite this success, we show that predicting fixations across multiple saliency datasets remains challenging due to dataset bias. We find a significant performance drop (around 40%) when models trained on one dataset are applied to another. Surprisingly, increasing dataset diversity does not resolve this inter-dataset gap, with close to 60% attributed to dataset-specific biases. To address this remaining generalization gap, we propose a novel architecture extending a mostly dataset-agnostic encoder-decoder structure with fewer than 20 dataset-specific parameters that govern interpretable mechanisms such as multi-scale structure, center bias, and fixation spread. Adapting only these parameters to new data accounts for more than 75% of the generalization gap, with a large fraction of the improvement achieved with as few as 50 samples. Our model sets a new state-of-the-art on all three datasets of the MIT/Tuebingen Saliency Benchmark (MIT300, CAT2000, and COCO-Freeview), even when purely generalizing from unrelated datasets, but with a substantial boost when adapting to the respective training datasets. The model also provides valuable insights into spatial saliency properties, revealing complex multi-scale effects that combine both absolute and relative sizes.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

Reasoning Is Not All You Need: Examining LLMs for Multi-Turn Mental Health Conversations

Limited access to mental healthcare, extended wait times, and increasing capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) has led individuals to turn to LLMs for fulfilling their mental health needs. However, examining the multi-turn mental health conversation capabilities of LLMs remains under-explored. Existing evaluation frameworks typically focus on diagnostic accuracy and win-rates and often overlook alignment with patient-specific goals, values, and personalities required for meaningful conversations. To address this, we introduce MedAgent, a novel framework for synthetically generating realistic, multi-turn mental health sensemaking conversations and use it to create the Mental Health Sensemaking Dialogue (MHSD) dataset, comprising over 2,200 patient-LLM conversations. Additionally, we present MultiSenseEval, a holistic framework to evaluate the multi-turn conversation abilities of LLMs in healthcare settings using human-centric criteria. Our findings reveal that frontier reasoning models yield below-par performance for patient-centric communication and struggle at advanced diagnostic capabilities with average score of 31%. Additionally, we observed variation in model performance based on patient's persona and performance drop with increasing turns in the conversation. Our work provides a comprehensive synthetic data generation framework, a dataset and evaluation framework for assessing LLMs in multi-turn mental health conversations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Lived Experience Not Found: LLMs Struggle to Align with Experts on Addressing Adverse Drug Reactions from Psychiatric Medication Use

Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) from psychiatric medications are the leading cause of hospitalizations among mental health patients. With healthcare systems and online communities facing limitations in resolving ADR-related issues, Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to fill this gap. Despite the increasing capabilities of LLMs, past research has not explored their capabilities in detecting ADRs related to psychiatric medications or in providing effective harm reduction strategies. To address this, we introduce the Psych-ADR benchmark and the Adverse Drug Reaction Response Assessment (ADRA) framework to systematically evaluate LLM performance in detecting ADR expressions and delivering expert-aligned mitigation strategies. Our analyses show that LLMs struggle with understanding the nuances of ADRs and differentiating between types of ADRs. While LLMs align with experts in terms of expressed emotions and tone of the text, their responses are more complex, harder to read, and only 70.86% aligned with expert strategies. Furthermore, they provide less actionable advice by a margin of 12.32% on average. Our work provides a comprehensive benchmark and evaluation framework for assessing LLMs in strategy-driven tasks within high-risk domains.

cs.CL↗