arXiv subjects

Venkat Bhat

Publications and source records attributed to Venkat Bhat.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

Estimating Quality in Therapeutic Conversations: A Multi-Dimensional Natural Language Processing Framework

Engagement between client and therapist is a critical determinant of therapeutic success. We propose a multi-dimensional natural language processing (NLP) framework that objectively classifies engagement quality in counseling sessions based on textual transcripts. Using 253 motivational interviewing transcripts (150 high-quality, 103 low-quality), we extracted 42 features across four domains: conversational dynamics, semantic similarity as topic alignment, sentiment classification, and question detection. Classifiers, including Random Forest (RF), Cat-Boost, and Support Vector Machines (SVM), were hyperparameter tuned and trained using a stratified 5-fold cross-validation and evaluated on a holdout test set. On balanced (non-augmented) data, RF achieved the highest classification accuracy (76.7%), and SVM achieved the highest AUC (85.4%). After SMOTE-Tomek augmentation, performance improved significantly: RF achieved up to 88.9% accuracy, 90.0% F1-score, and 94.6% AUC, while SVM reached 81.1% accuracy, 83.1% F1-score, and 93.6% AUC. The augmented data results reflect the potential of the framework in future larger-scale applications. Feature contribution revealed conversational dynamics and semantic similarity between clients and therapists were among the top contributors, led by words uttered by the client (mean and standard deviation). The framework was robust across the original and augmented datasets and demonstrated consistent improvements in F1 scores and recall. While currently text-based, the framework supports future multimodal extensions (e.g., vocal tone, facial affect) for more holistic assessments. This work introduces a scalable, data-driven method for evaluating engagement quality of the therapy session, offering clinicians real-time feedback to enhance the quality of both virtual and in-person therapeutic interactions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Understanding LLM Scientific Reasoning through Promptings and Model's Explanation on the Answers

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in natural language understanding, reasoning, and problem-solving across various domains. However, their ability to perform complex, multi-step reasoning task-essential for applications in science, medicine, and law-remains an area of active investigation. This paper examines the reasoning capabilities of contemporary LLMs, analyzing their strengths, limitations, and potential for improvement. The study uses prompt engineering techniques on the Graduate-Level GoogleProof Q&A (GPQA) dataset to assess the scientific reasoning of GPT-4o. Five popular prompt engineering techniques and two tailored promptings were tested: baseline direct answer (zero-shot), chain-of-thought (CoT), zero-shot CoT, self-ask, self-consistency, decomposition, and multipath promptings. Our findings indicate that while LLMs exhibit emergent reasoning abilities, they often rely on pattern recognition rather than true logical inference, leading to inconsistencies in complex problem-solving. The results indicated that self-consistency outperformed the other prompt engineering technique with an accuracy of 52.99%, followed by direct answer (52.23%). Zero-shot CoT (50%) outperformed multipath (48.44%), decomposition (47.77%), self-ask (46.88%), and CoT (43.75%). Self-consistency performed the second worst in explaining the answers. Simple techniques such as direct answer, CoT, and zero-shot CoT have the best scientific reasoning. We propose a research agenda aimed at bridging these gaps by integrating structured reasoning frameworks, hybrid AI approaches, and human-in-the-loop methodologies. By critically evaluating the reasoning mechanisms of LLMs, this paper contributes to the ongoing discourse on the future of artificial general intelligence and the development of more robust, trustworthy AI systems.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Human vs. LLM-Based Thematic Analysis for Digital Mental Health Research: Proof-of-Concept Comparative Study

Thematic analysis provides valuable insights into participants' experiences through coding and theme development, but its resource-intensive nature limits its use in large healthcare studies. Large language models (LLMs) can analyze text at scale and identify key content automatically, potentially addressing these challenges. However, their application in mental health interviews needs comparison with traditional human analysis. This study evaluates out-of-the-box and knowledge-base LLM-based thematic analysis against traditional methods using transcripts from a stress-reduction trial with healthcare workers. OpenAI's GPT-4o model was used along with the Role, Instructions, Steps, End-Goal, Narrowing (RISEN) prompt engineering framework and compared to human analysis in Dedoose. Each approach developed codes, noted saturation points, applied codes to excerpts for a subset of participants (n = 20), and synthesized data into themes. Outputs and performance metrics were compared directly. LLMs using the RISEN framework developed deductive parent codes similar to human codes, but humans excelled in inductive child code development and theme synthesis. Knowledge-based LLMs reached coding saturation with fewer transcripts (10-15) than the out-of-the-box model (15-20) and humans (90-99). The out-of-the-box LLM identified a comparable number of excerpts to human researchers, showing strong inter-rater reliability (K = 0.84), though the knowledge-based LLM produced fewer excerpts. Human excerpts were longer and involved multiple codes per excerpt, while LLMs typically applied one code. Overall, LLM-based thematic analysis proved more cost-effective but lacked the depth of human analysis. LLMs can transform qualitative analysis in mental healthcare and clinical research when combined with human oversight to balance participant perspectives and research resources.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2023

Medical Misinformation in AI-Assisted Self-Diagnosis: Development of a Method (EvalPrompt) for Analyzing Large Language Models

Rapid integration of large language models (LLMs) in health care is sparking global discussion about their potential to revolutionize health care quality and accessibility. At a time when improving health care quality and access remains a critical concern for countries worldwide, the ability of these models to pass medical examinations is often cited as a reason to use them for medical training and diagnosis. However, the impact of their inevitable use as a self-diagnostic tool and their role in spreading healthcare misinformation has not been evaluated. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of LLMs, particularly ChatGPT, from the perspective of an individual self-diagnosing to better understand the clarity, correctness, and robustness of the models. We propose the comprehensive testing methodology evaluation of LLM prompts (EvalPrompt). This evaluation methodology uses multiple-choice medical licensing examination questions to evaluate LLM responses. We use open-ended questions to mimic real-world self-diagnosis use cases, and perform sentence dropout to mimic realistic self-diagnosis with missing information. Human evaluators then assess the responses returned by ChatGPT for both experiments for clarity, correctness, and robustness. The results highlight the modest capabilities of LLMs, as their responses are often unclear and inaccurate. As a result, medical advice by LLMs should be cautiously approached. However, evidence suggests that LLMs are steadily improving and could potentially play a role in healthcare systems in the future. To address the issue of medical misinformation, there is a pressing need for the development of a comprehensive self-diagnosis dataset. This dataset could enhance the reliability of LLMs in medical applications by featuring more realistic prompt styles with minimal information across a broader range of medical fields.

cs.CY↗