CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 22Digital Mental Health InterventionsSpeech and dialogue systemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

An Evaluation of Generative Pre-Training Model-based Therapy Chatbot for Caregivers

Open access
Wang, Lu, Mujib, Munif Ishad, Williams, Jake, Demiris, George, Huh-Yoo, Jina·2021·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2107.13115arXiv 2107.13115
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

With the advent of off-the-shelf intelligent home products and broader internet adoption, researchers increasingly explore smart computing applications that provide easier access to health and wellness resources. AI-based systems like chatbots have the potential to provide services that could provide mental health support. However, existing therapy chatbots are often retrieval-based, requiring users to respond with a constrained set of answers, which may not be appropriate given that such pre-determined inquiries may not reflect each patient's unique circumstances. Generative-based approaches, such as the OpenAI GPT models, could allow for more dynamic conversations in therapy chatbot contexts than previous approaches. To investigate the generative-based model's potential in therapy chatbot contexts, we built a chatbot using the GPT-2 model. We fine-tuned it with 306 therapy session transcripts between family caregivers of individuals with dementia and therapists conducting Problem Solving Therapy. We then evaluated the model's pre-trained and the fine-tuned model in terms of basic qualities using three meta-information measurements: the proportion of non-word outputs, the length of response, and sentiment components. Results showed that: (1) the fine-tuned model created more non-word outputs than the pre-trained model; (2) the fine-tuned model generated outputs whose length was more similar to that of the therapists compared to the pre-trained model; (3) both the pre-trained model and fine-tuned model were likely to generate more negative and fewer positive outputs than the therapists. We discuss potential reasons for the problem, the implications, and solutions for developing therapy chatbots and call for investigations of the AI-based system application.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2107.13115

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most previous log-analysis work used restricted interaction settings and adapted models or interfaces for specific tasks, making generalization to other tasks and configurations difficult.

    “However, most previous work considered restricted interaction settings (e.g.strict turn-taking [15]) and adapted LMs and interfaces (e.g.fnd-tuned GPT-2 [58]) on specifc tasks (e.g.email writing [8]), thereby making it hard to generalize to other tasks and confgurations of the same model.”

    From CoAuthor: Designing a Human-AI Collaborative Writing Dataset for Exploring Language Model Capabilities (2022) · cites this paper as [58]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 69

  1. [3][3] Bibilola D Oladeji and Oye Gureje. Brain drain: a challenge to global mental health. BJPsych international, 13(3):61–63, 2016.
  2. [4][4] Liliana Laranjo, Adam G Dunn, Huong Ly Tong, Ahmet Baki Kocaballi, Jessica Chen, Rabia Bashir, Didi Surian, Blanca Gallego, Farah Magrabi, Annie YS Lau, et al. Conversational agents in healthcare: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 25(9):1248–1258, 2018.
  3. [8][8] Aggeliki Androutsopoulou, Nikos Karacapilidis, Euripidis Loukis, and Yannis Charalabidis. Transforming the communication between citizens and government through ai-guided chatbots. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2):358–367, 2019.
  4. [9][9] Alin-Andrei Georgescu. Chatbots for education–trends, benefits and challenges. The International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education, 2:195–200, 2018.
  5. [10][10] Joshua R Moore and Robert Caudill. The bot will see you now: a history and review of interactive computerized mental health programs. Psychiatric Clinics, 42(4):627–634, 2019.
  6. [11][11] Jingwen Zhang, Yoo Jung Oh, Patrick Lange, Zhou Yu, and Yoshimi Fukuoka. Artificial intelligence chatbot behavior change model for designing artificial intelligence chatbots to promote physical activity and a healthy diet. Journal of medical Internet research, 22(9):e22845, 2020.
  7. [12][12] Russell Fulmer, Angela Joerin, Breanna Gentile, Lysanne Lakerink, and Michiel Rauws. Using psychological artificial intelligence (tess) to relieve symptoms of depression and anxiety: randomized controlled trial. JMIR mental health, 5(4):e9782, 2018.
  8. [13][13] Annabell Ho, Jeff Hancock, and Adam S Miner. Psychological, relational, and emotional effects of self- disclosure after conversations with a chatbot. Journal of Communication, 68(4):712–733, 2018.
  9. [15][15] Alexandros Roniotis and Manolis Tsiknakis. Detecting depression using voice signal extracted by chatbots: A feasibility study. In Interactivity, game creation, design, learning, and innovation, pages 386–392. Springer, 2017. 13 A PREPRINT - JULY 29, 2021
  10. [16][16] Adam Palanica, Peter Flaschner, Anirudh Thommandram, Michael Li, and Yan Fossat. Physicians' percep- tions of chatbots in health care: Cross-sectional web-based survey. Journal of medical Internet research, 21(4):e12887, 2019.
  11. [18][18] Bhuvan Sharma, Harshita Puri, and Deepika Rawat. Digital psychiatry-curbing depression using therapy chatbot and depression analysis. In 2018 Second International Conference on Inventive Communication and Computa- tional Technologies (ICICCT), pages 627–631. IEEE, 2018.
  12. [19][19] Alaa A Abd-Alrazaq, Mohannad Alajlani, Ali Abdallah Alalwan, Bridgette M Bewick, Peter Gardner, and Mowafa Househ. An overview of the features of chatbots in mental health: A scoping review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 132:103978, 2019.
  13. [20][20] Jianfeng Gao, Michel Galley, and Lihong Li. Neural approaches to conversational ai. In The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval, pages 1371–1374, 2018.
  14. [21][21] Hongshen Chen, Xiaorui Liu, Dawei Yin, and Jiliang Tang. A survey on dialogue systems: Recent advances and new frontiers. Acm Sigkdd Explorations Newsletter, 19(2):25–35, 2017.
  15. [22][22] Chin-Yew Lin. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74–81, 2004.
  16. [23][23] Chia-Wei Liu, Ryan Lowe, Iulian V Serban, Michael Noseworthy, Laurent Charlin, and Joelle Pineau. How not to evaluate your dialogue system: An empirical study of unsupervised evaluation metrics for dialogue response generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08023, 2016. · arXiv
  17. [24][24] Ana Paula Chaves and Marco Aurelio Gerosa. How should my chatbot interact? a survey on social characteris- tics in human–chatbot interaction design. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, pages 1–30, 2020.
  18. [27][27] Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9, 2019.
  19. [32][32] Stephen Sutton, Ronald A Cole, Jacques de Villiers, Johan Schalkwyk, Pieter Vermeulen, Michael W Macon, Yonghong Yan, Edward Kaiser, Brian Rundle, Khaldoun Shobaki, et al. Universal speech tools: The cslu toolkit. In Fifth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, 1998.
  20. [33][33] David Goddeau, Helen Meng, Joseph Polifroni, Stephanie Seneff, and Senis Busayapongchai. A form-based dialogue manager for spoken language applications. In Proceeding of Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. ICSLP'96, volume 2, pages 701–704. IEEE, 1996.
  21. [37][37] Tetsuo Shinozaki, Yukiko Yamamoto, and Setsuo Tsuruta. Context-based counselor agent for software devel- opment ecosystem. Computing, 97(1):3–28, 2015. 14 A PREPRINT - JULY 29, 2021
  22. [43][43] Aarsh Trivedi, Vatsal Gor, and Zalak Thakkar. Chatbot generation and integration: A review. International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology, 5(2):1308–1311, 2019.
  23. [45][45] Tom B Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Nee- lakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165, 2020. · arXiv
  24. [46][46] Xipeng Qiu, Tianxiang Sun, Yige Xu, Yunfan Shao, Ning Dai, and Xuanjing Huang. Pre-trained models for natural language processing: A survey. Science China Technological Sciences, pages 1–26, 2020.
  25. [48][48] Jesse Vig. A multiscale visualization of attention in the transformer model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05714, 2019. · arXiv
  26. [49][49] Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Caglar Gulcehre, Bing Xiang, et al. Abstractive text summarization using sequence-to-sequence rnns and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.06023, 2016. · arXiv
  27. [50][50] Courtney Napoles, Matthew R Gormley, and Benjamin Van Durme. Annotated gigaword. In Proceedings of the Joint Workshop on Automatic Knowledge Base Construction and Web-scale Knowledge Extraction (AKBC- WEKEX), pages 95–100, 2012.
  28. [53][53] Emeric Dynomant, Stéfan J Darmoni, Émeline Lejeune, Gaétan Kerdelhué, Jean-Philippe Leroy, Vincent Le- quertier, Stéphane Canu, and Julien Grosjean. Doc2vec on the pubmed corpus: study of a new approach to generate related articles. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.11698, 2019. · arXiv
  29. [54][54] Angela Joerin, Michiel Rauws, and Mary Lou Ackerman. Psychological artificial intelligence service, tess: delivering on-demand support to patients and their caregivers: technical report. Cureus, 11(1), 2019.
  30. [56][56] Heung-Yeung Shum, Xiao-dong He, and Di Li. From eliza to xiaoice: challenges and opportunities with social chatbots. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, 19(1):10–26, 2018.
  31. [58][58] Binbin Xu, Cédric Gil-Jardiné, Frantz Thiessard, Eric Tellier, Marta Avalos, and Emmanuel Lagarde. Neural language model for automated classification of electronic medical records at the emergency room. the significant benefit of unsupervised generative pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01136, 2019. · arXiv
  32. [59][59] Luciano Floridi and Massimo Chiriatti. Gpt-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30(4):681–694, 2020.
  33. [60][60] Kris McGuffie and Alex Newhouse. The radicalization risks of gpt-3 and advanced neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.06807, 2020. · arXiv
  34. [61][61] Aidan Boyd, Adam Czajka, and Kevin Bowyer. Deep learning-based feature extraction in iris recognition: Use existing models, fine-tune or train from scratch? In 2019 IEEE 10th International Conference on Biometrics Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS), pages 1–9. IEEE, 2019.
  35. [62][62] Robert G Newcombe. Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods. Statistics in medicine, 17(8):873–890, 1998.
  36. [63][63] Robert G Newcombe. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Statistics in medicine, 17(8):857–872, 1998.
  37. [66][66] Chathika Gunaratne, Chathurani Senevirathna, Chathura Jayalath, Nisha Baral, William Rand, and Ivan Garibay. A multi-action cascade model of conversation. In 5th International Conference on Computational Social Sci- ence, URL http://app. ic2s2. org/app/sessions/9kXqn5btgKKC5yfCvg/details, 2019.
  38. [67][67] John Heritage. Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing distinctive turn-taking. Dialoganalyse VI/2: Referate der 6. Arbeitstagung, Prag 1996, 17(3), 2017.
  39. [68][68] Peter Gordon Roetzel. Information overload in the information age: a review of the literature from business administration, business psychology, and related disciplines with a bibliometric approach and framework devel- opment. Business research, 12(2):479–522, 2019.
  40. [70][70] Hiram Calvo and Alexander Gelbukh. Finding the most frequent sense of a word by the length of its definition. In Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1–8. Springer, 2014.
  41. [71][71] Hae-Young Kim. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: A one-way repeated measures anova for data with repeated observations. Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 40(1):91, 2015.
  42. [72][72] Hervé Abdi and Lynne J Williams. Tukey's honestly significant difference (hsd) test. Encyclopedia of research design, 3(1):1–5, 2010.
  43. [73][73] Anao Zhang, Sunyoung Park, John E Sullivan, and Shijie Jing. The effectiveness of problem-solving therapy for primary care patients' depressive and/or anxiety disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 31(1):139–150, 2018.
  44. [75][75] William L Hamilton, Kevin Clark, Jure Leskovec, and Dan Jurafsky. Inducing domain-specific sentiment lexicons from unlabeled corpora. In Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, volume 2016, page 595. NIH Public Access, 2016.
  45. [76][76] Scott A Crossley, Kristopher Kyle, and Danielle S McNamara. Sentiment analysis and social cognition en- gine (seance): An automatic tool for sentiment, social cognition, and social-order analysis. Behavior research methods, 49(3):803–821, 2017.
  46. [82][82] Saif Mohammad and Peter Turney. Emotions evoked by common words and phrases: Using mechanical turk to create an emotion lexicon. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 workshop on computational approaches to analysis and generation of emotion in text, pages 26–34, 2010.
  47. [84][84] Erik Cambria, Catherine Havasi, and Amir Hussain. Senticnet 2: A semantic and affective resource for opinion mining and sentiment analysis. In Twenty-Fifth international FLAIRS conference, 2012.
  48. [85][85] Clayton Hutto and Eric Gilbert. Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, volume 8, 2014.
  49. [86][86] Zhengyan Zhang, Xu Han, Zhiyuan Liu, Xin Jiang, Maosong Sun, and Qun Liu. Ernie: Enhanced language representation with informative entities. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07129, 2019. · arXiv
  50. [87][87] Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461, 2019. · arXiv
  51. [88][88] Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692, 2019. · arXiv
  52. [89][89] Lingpeng Kong, Cyprien de Masson d'Autume, Wang Ling, Lei Yu, Zihang Dai, and Dani Yogatama. A mutual information maximization perspective of language representation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.08350, 2019. · arXiv
  53. [90][90] Lichao Sun, Kazuma Hashimoto, Wenpeng Yin, Akari Asai, Jia Li, Philip Yu, and Caiming Xiong. Adv- bert: Bert is not robust on misspellings! generating nature adversarial samples on bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04985, 2020. · arXiv
  54. [91][91] Xiaodong Liu, Hao Cheng, Pengcheng He, Weizhu Chen, Yu Wang, Hoifung Poon, and Jianfeng Gao. Adver- sarial training for large neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.08994, 2020. · arXiv
  55. [92][92] Chen Zhu, Yu Cheng, Zhe Gan, Siqi Sun, Tom Goldstein, and Jingjing Liu. Freelb: Enhanced adversarial training for natural language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11764, 2019. · arXiv
  56. [93][93] Ali Shafahi, Mahyar Najibi, Amin Ghiasi, Zheng Xu, John Dickerson, Christoph Studer, Larry S Davis, Gavin Taylor, and Tom Goldstein. Adversarial training for free! arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.12843, 2019. · arXiv
  57. [94][94] Chathika Gunaratne, Nisha Baral, William Rand, Ivan Garibay, Chathura Jayalath, and Chathurani Senevirathna. The effects of information overload on online conversation dynamics. Computational and Mathematical Orga- nization Theory, 26(2):255–276, 2020.
  58. [95][95] Albert Gatt and Emiel Krahmer. Survey of the state of the art in natural language generation: Core tasks, applications and evaluation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 61:65–170, 2018.
  59. [99][99] Olivier Ferlatte, Travis Salway, Simon Rice, John L Oliffe, Ashleigh J Rich, Rod Knight, Jeffrey Morgan, and John S Ogrodniczuk. Perceived barriers to mental health services among canadian sexual and gender minorities with depression and at risk of suicide. Community mental health journal, 55(8):1313–1321, 2019.
  60. [100][100] Nneka Jon-Ubabuco and Jane Dimmitt Champion. Perceived mental healthcare barriers and health-seeking behavior of african-american caregivers of adolescents with mental health disorders. Issues in mental health nursing, 40(7):585–592, 2019. 17 A PREPRINT - JULY 29, 2021
  61. [102][102] Olabiyi Oluwatobi and Erik Mueller. Dlgnet: A transformer-based model for dialogue response generation. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Conversational AI, pages 54–62, 2020.
  62. [103][103] Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. Preprint, 2018.
  63. [104][104] Zihang Dai, Zhilin Yang, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Quoc V Le, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Transformer- xl: Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.02860, 2019. · arXiv
  64. [105][105] Yu Sun, Shuohuan Wang, Yukun Li, Shikun Feng, Hao Tian, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. Ernie 2.0: A con- tinual pre-training framework for language understanding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8968–8975, 2020.
  65. [106][106] Feiyu Xu, Hans Uszkoreit, Yangzhou Du, Wei Fan, Dongyan Zhao, and Jun Zhu. Explainable ai: A brief survey on history, research areas, approaches and challenges. In CCF international conference on natural language processing and Chinese computing, pages 563–574. Springer, 2019.
  66. [107][107] Carlos Zednik. Solving the black box problem: a normative framework for explainable artificial intelligence. Philosophy & Technology, pages 1–24, 2019.
  67. [108][108] Dumitru Erhan, Aaron Courville, Yoshua Bengio, and Pascal Vincent. Why does unsupervised pre-training help deep learning? In Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 201–208. JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2010.
  68. [110][110] Tim Bond. The law of confidentiality–a solution or part of the problem? Legal issues in counselling and psychotherapy, pages 123–143, 2002.
  69. [112][112] Qian Yang, Aaron Steinfeld, Carolyn Rosé, and John Zimmerman. Re-examining whether, why, and how human-ai interaction is uniquely difficult to design. In Proceedings of the 2020 chi conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 1–13, 2020. 18

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wang, L., Mujib, M. I., Williams, J., Demiris, G., & Huh-Yoo, J.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2107.13115
arXiv
2107.13115
OpenAlex
W3183473388
Cited by
21
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
GPT-2, family caregivers, dementia, problem-solving therapy, fine-tuning, conversational AI, mental health support, response quality evaluation, sentiment analysis, response length

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review