arXiv subjects

Nina Vasan

Publications and source records attributed to Nina Vasan.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Expert Evaluation and the Limits of Human Feedback in Mental Health AI Safety Testing

Learning from human feedback~(LHF) assumes that expert judgments, appropriately aggregated, yield valid ground truth for training and evaluating AI systems. We tested this assumption in mental health, where high safety stakes make expert consensus essential. Three certified psychiatrists independently evaluated LLM-generated responses using a calibrated rubric. Despite similar training and shared instructions, inter-rater reliability was consistently poor ($ICC$ $0.087$--$0.295$), falling below thresholds considered acceptable for consequential assessment. Disagreement was highest on the most safety-critical items. Suicide and self-harm responses produced greater divergence than any other category, and was systematic rather than random. One factor yielded negative reliability (Krippendorff's $α= -0.203$), indicating structured disagreement worse than chance. Qualitative interviews revealed that disagreement reflects coherent but incompatible individual clinical frameworks, safety-first, engagement-centered, and culturally-informed orientations, rather than measurement error. By demonstrating that experts rely on holistic risk heuristics rather than granular factor discrimination, these findings suggest that aggregated labels function as arithmetic compromises that effectively erase grounded professional philosophies. Our results characterize expert disagreement in safety-critical AI as a sociotechnical phenomenon where professional experience introduces sophisticated layers of principled divergence. We discuss implications for reward modeling, safety classification, and evaluation benchmarks, recommending that practitioners shift from consensus-based aggregation to alignment methods that preserve and learn from expert disagreement.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Moving Beyond Medical Exams: A Clinician-Annotated Fairness Dataset of Real-World Tasks and Ambiguity in Mental Healthcare

Current medical language model (LM) benchmarks often over-simplify the complexities of day-to-day clinical practice tasks and instead rely on evaluating LMs on multiple-choice board exam questions. In psychiatry especially, these challenges are worsened by fairness and bias issues, since models can be swayed by patient demographics even when those factors should not influence clinical decisions. Thus, we present an expert-created and annotated dataset spanning five critical domains of decision-making in mental healthcare: treatment, diagnosis, documentation, monitoring, and triage. This U.S.-centric dataset - created without any LM assistance - is designed to capture the nuanced clinical reasoning and daily ambiguities mental health practitioners encounter, reflecting the inherent complexities of care delivery that are missing from existing datasets. Almost all base questions with five answer options each have had the decision-irrelevant demographic patient information removed and replaced with variables, e.g., for age or ethnicity, and are available for male, female, or non-binary-coded patients. This design enables systematic evaluations of model performance and bias by studying how demographic factors affect decision-making. For question categories dealing with ambiguity and multiple valid answer options, we create a preference dataset with uncertainties from the expert annotations. We outline a series of intended use cases and demonstrate the usability of our dataset by evaluating sixteen off-the-shelf and six (mental) health fine-tuned LMs on category-specific task accuracy, on the fairness impact of patient demographic information on decision-making, and how consistently free-form responses deviate from human-annotated samples.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons

The rapid advancement and deployment of AI systems have created an urgent need for standard safety-evaluation frameworks. This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability. Its development employed an open process that included participants from multiple fields. The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories, including violent crimes, nonviolent crimes, sex-related crimes, child sexual exploitation, indiscriminate weapons, suicide and self-harm, intellectual property, privacy, defamation, hate, sexual content, and specialized advice (election, financial, health, legal). Our method incorporates a complete assessment standard, extensive prompt datasets, a novel evaluation framework, a grading and reporting system, and the technical as well as organizational infrastructure for long-term support and evolution. In particular, the benchmark employs an understandable five-tier grading scale (Poor to Excellent) and incorporates an innovative entropy-based system-response evaluation. In addition to unveiling the benchmark, this report also identifies limitations of our method and of building safety benchmarks generally, including evaluator uncertainty and the constraints of single-turn interactions. This work represents a crucial step toward establishing global standards for AI risk and reliability evaluation while acknowledging the need for continued development in areas such as multiturn interactions, multimodal understanding, coverage of additional languages, and emerging hazard categories. Our findings provide valuable insights for model developers, system integrators, and policymakers working to promote safer AI deployment.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Risks from Language Models for Automated Mental Healthcare: Ethics and Structure for Implementation

Amidst the growing interest in developing task-autonomous AI for automated mental health care, this paper addresses the ethical and practical challenges associated with the issue and proposes a structured framework that delineates levels of autonomy, outlines ethical requirements, and defines beneficial default behaviors for AI agents in the context of mental health support. We also evaluate fourteen state-of-the-art language models (ten off-the-shelf, four fine-tuned) using 16 mental health-related questionnaires designed to reflect various mental health conditions, such as psychosis, mania, depression, suicidal thoughts, and homicidal tendencies. The questionnaire design and response evaluations were conducted by mental health clinicians (M.D.s). We find that existing language models are insufficient to match the standard provided by human professionals who can navigate nuances and appreciate context. This is due to a range of issues, including overly cautious or sycophantic responses and the absence of necessary safeguards. Alarmingly, we find that most of the tested models could cause harm if accessed in mental health emergencies, failing to protect users and potentially exacerbating existing symptoms. We explore solutions to enhance the safety of current models. Before the release of increasingly task-autonomous AI systems in mental health, it is crucial to ensure that these models can reliably detect and manage symptoms of common psychiatric disorders to prevent harm to users. This involves aligning with the ethical framework and default behaviors outlined in our study. We contend that model developers are responsible for refining their systems per these guidelines to safeguard against the risks posed by current AI technologies to user mental health and safety. Trigger warning: Contains and discusses examples of sensitive mental health topics, including suicide and self-harm.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2022

Building Human Values into Recommender Systems: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis

Recommender systems are the algorithms which select, filter, and personalize content across many of the worlds largest platforms and apps. As such, their positive and negative effects on individuals and on societies have been extensively theorized and studied. Our overarching question is how to ensure that recommender systems enact the values of the individuals and societies that they serve. Addressing this question in a principled fashion requires technical knowledge of recommender design and operation, and also critically depends on insights from diverse fields including social science, ethics, economics, psychology, policy and law. This paper is a multidisciplinary effort to synthesize theory and practice from different perspectives, with the goal of providing a shared language, articulating current design approaches, and identifying open problems. It is not a comprehensive survey of this large space, but a set of highlights identified by our diverse author cohort. We collect a set of values that seem most relevant to recommender systems operating across different domains, then examine them from the perspectives of current industry practice, measurement, product design, and policy approaches. Important open problems include multi-stakeholder processes for defining values and resolving trade-offs, better values-driven measurements, recommender controls that people use, non-behavioral algorithmic feedback, optimization for long-term outcomes, causal inference of recommender effects, academic-industry research collaborations, and interdisciplinary policy-making.

cs.IR↗