Building Trust in Mental Health Chatbots: Safety Metrics and LLM-Based Evaluation Tools

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.04650v1
• Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2024 19:57:49 GMT
• Title: Building Trust in Mental Health Chatbots: Safety Metrics and LLM-Based Evaluation Tools
• Authors: Jung In Park, Mahyar Abbasian, Iman Azimi, Dawn Bounds, Angela Jun, Jaesu Han, Robert McCarron, Jessica Borelli, Jia Li, Mona Mahmoudi, Carmen Wiedenhoeft, Amir Rahmani,
• Abstract summary: We created an evaluation framework with 100 benchmark questions and ideal responses. This framework, validated by mental health experts, was tested on a GPT-3.5-turbo-based chatbots.
• Score: 13.34861013664551
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Objective: This study aims to develop and validate an evaluation framework to ensure the safety and reliability of mental health chatbots, which are increasingly popular due to their accessibility, human-like interactions, and context-aware support. Materials and Methods: We created an evaluation framework with 100 benchmark questions and ideal responses, and five guideline questions for chatbot responses. This framework, validated by mental health experts, was tested on a GPT-3.5-turbo-based chatbot. Automated evaluation methods explored included large language model (LLM)-based scoring, an agentic approach using real-time data, and embedding models to compare chatbot responses against ground truth standards. Results: The results highlight the importance of guidelines and ground truth for improving LLM evaluation accuracy. The agentic method, dynamically accessing reliable information, demonstrated the best alignment with human assessments. Adherence to a standardized, expert-validated framework significantly enhanced chatbot response safety and reliability. Discussion: Our findings emphasize the need for comprehensive, expert-tailored safety evaluation metrics for mental health chatbots. While LLMs have significant potential, careful implementation is necessary to mitigate risks. The superior performance of the agentic approach underscores the importance of real-time data access in enhancing chatbot reliability. Conclusion: The study validated an evaluation framework for mental health chatbots, proving its effectiveness in improving safety and reliability. Future work should extend evaluations to accuracy, bias, empathy, and privacy to ensure holistic assessment and responsible integration into healthcare. Standardized evaluations will build trust among users and professionals, facilitating broader adoption and improved mental health support through technology.

Related papers

• SouLLMate: An Application Enhancing Diverse Mental Health Support with Adaptive LLMs, Prompt Engineering, and RAG Techniques [9.146311285410631]
  Mental health issues significantly impact individuals' daily lives, yet many do not receive the help they need even with available online resources. This study aims to provide diverse, accessible, stigma-free, personalized, and real-time mental health support through cutting-edge AI technologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T22:04:32Z)
• SouLLMate: An Adaptive LLM-Driven System for Advanced Mental Health Support and Assessment, Based on a Systematic Application Survey [9.146311285410631]
  Mental health issues significantly impact individuals' daily lives, yet many do not receive the help they need even with available online resources. This study aims to provide accessible, stigma-free, personalized, and real-time mental health support through cutting-edge AI technologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T17:11:29Z)
• On the Reliability of Large Language Models to Misinformed and Demographically-Informed Prompts [20.84000437261526]
  We investigate and observe Large Language Model (LLM)-backed chatbots in addressing misinformed prompts and questions with demographic information. quantitative analysis using True/False questions reveals that these chatbots can be relied on to give the right answers to these close-ended questions. qualitative insights, gathered from domain experts, shows that there are still concerns regarding privacy, ethical implications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T07:40:11Z)
• Enhancing Mental Health Support through Human-AI Collaboration: Toward Secure and Empathetic AI-enabled chatbots [0.0]
  This paper explores the potential of AI-enabled chatbots as a scalable solution. We assess their ability to deliver empathetic, meaningful responses in mental health contexts. We propose a federated learning framework that ensures data privacy, reduces bias, and integrates continuous validation from clinicians to enhance response quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-17T20:49:13Z)
• ConSiDERS-The-Human Evaluation Framework: Rethinking Human Evaluation for Generative Large Language Models [53.00812898384698]
  We argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking. We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert. We propose the ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of 6 pillars -- Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible, and Scalability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T22:45:28Z)
• Foundation Metrics for Evaluating Effectiveness of Healthcare Conversations Powered by Generative AI [38.497288024393065]
  Generative Artificial Intelligence is set to revolutionize healthcare delivery by transforming traditional patient care into a more personalized, efficient, and proactive process. This paper explores state-of-the-art evaluation metrics that are specifically applicable to the assessment of interactive conversational models in healthcare.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-21T19:36:48Z)
• ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate [57.71597869337909]
  We build a multi-agent referee team called ChatEval to autonomously discuss and evaluate the quality of generated responses from different models. Our analysis shows that ChatEval transcends mere textual scoring, offering a human-mimicking evaluation process for reliable assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T15:13:04Z)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• On the Robustness of ChatGPT: An Adversarial and Out-of-distribution Perspective [67.98821225810204]
  We evaluate the robustness of ChatGPT from the adversarial and out-of-distribution perspective. Results show consistent advantages on most adversarial and OOD classification and translation tasks. ChatGPT shows astounding performance in understanding dialogue-related texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-22T11:01:20Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)
• GO FIGURE: A Meta Evaluation of Factuality in Summarization [131.1087461486504]
  We introduce GO FIGURE, a meta-evaluation framework for evaluating factuality evaluation metrics. Our benchmark analysis on ten factuality metrics reveals that our framework provides a robust and efficient evaluation. It also reveals that while QA metrics generally improve over standard metrics that measure factuality across domains, performance is highly dependent on the way in which questions are generated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-24T08:30:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.