Building Trust in Mental Health Chatbots: Safety Metrics and LLM-Based Evaluation Tools
0
👨🏫
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This study aimed to develop and validate an evaluation framework to ensure the safety and reliability of mental health chatbots.
- Mental health chatbots are increasingly popular due to their accessibility, human-like interactions, and context-aware support.
- The researchers created an evaluation framework with benchmark questions, ideal responses, and guideline questions for chatbot responses.
- The framework was validated by mental health experts and tested on a GPT-3.5-turbo-based chatbot.
Plain English Explanation
The researchers wanted to create a way to evaluate the safety and reliability of mental health chatbots. These are computer programs that can have conversations with people and provide support for mental health issues. They are becoming more popular because they are easy to access, seem human-like, and can provide personalized help.
The researchers developed an evaluation framework, which is a set of guidelines and standards to assess these chatbots. This framework includes 100 sample questions and ideal responses, as well as 5 guidelines for how the chatbots should respond. Mental health experts reviewed and validated this framework.
The researchers then tested the framework on a chatbot that was built using a large language model called GPT-3.5-turbo. They used different methods to automatically evaluate how well the chatbot's responses aligned with the framework, including using the language model itself to score the responses, and accessing real-time data to dynamically assess the chatbot's answers.
Technical Explanation
The researchers created an evaluation framework for mental health chatbots that included 100 benchmark questions and ideal responses, as well as 5 guideline questions to assess the appropriateness of chatbot responses. This framework was validated by mental health experts.
To test the framework, the researchers used a GPT-3.5-turbo-based chatbot. They explored several automated evaluation methods, including:
- LLM-based scoring: Using the language model itself to score how well the chatbot's responses matched the ideal responses.
- Agentic approach: Dynamically accessing reliable information in real-time to assess the chatbot's responses.
- Embedding models: Comparing the chatbot's responses to the ground truth standards in the evaluation framework.
The results showed that the agentic approach performed best in aligning with human assessments, underscoring the importance of real-time data access in enhancing chatbot reliability. Adhering to the standardized, expert-validated framework also significantly improved the safety and reliability of the chatbot's responses.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge that while large language models like GPT-3.5-turbo have significant potential, careful implementation is necessary to mitigate the risks associated with using these models in mental health applications. The superior performance of the agentic approach suggests that real-time access to reliable information is crucial for enhancing chatbot safety and reliability.
However, the study is limited in its scope, as it only focused on evaluating the safety and reliability of chatbot responses. Future work should extend the evaluations to include metrics for accuracy, bias, empathy, and privacy to ensure a more holistic assessment of mental health chatbots.
Conclusion
The study validated an evaluation framework for mental health chatbots, demonstrating its effectiveness in improving the safety and reliability of these systems. Standardized evaluations like this framework will help build trust among users and professionals, facilitating the broader adoption and improved mental health support through technology.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
👨🏫
0
Building Trust in Mental Health Chatbots: Safety Metrics and LLM-Based Evaluation Tools
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
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.
Read more8/12/2024
0
A Framework for Evaluating Appropriateness, Trustworthiness, and Safety in Mental Wellness AI Chatbots
Lucia Chen, David A. Preece, Pilleriin Sikka, James J. Gross, Ben Krause
Large language model (LLM) chatbots are susceptible to biases and hallucinations, but current evaluations of mental wellness technologies lack comprehensive case studies to evaluate their practical applications. Here, we address this gap by introducing the MHealth-EVAL framework, a new role-play based interactive evaluation method designed specifically for evaluating the appropriateness, trustworthiness, and safety of mental wellness chatbots. We also introduce Psyfy, a new chatbot leveraging LLMs to facilitate transdiagnostic Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). We demonstrate the MHealth-EVAL framework's utility through a comparative study of two versions of Psyfy against standard baseline chatbots. Our results showed that Psyfy chatbots outperformed the baseline chatbots in delivering appropriate responses, engaging users, and avoiding untrustworthy responses. However, both Psyfy and the baseline chatbots exhibited some limitations, such as providing predominantly US-centric resources. While Psyfy chatbots were able to identify most unsafe situations and avoid giving unsafe responses, they sometimes struggled to recognize subtle harmful intentions when prompted in role play scenarios. Our study demonstrates a practical application of the MHealth-EVAL framework and showcases Psyfy's utility in harnessing LLMs to enhance user engagement and provide flexible and appropriate responses aligned with an evidence-based CBT approach.
Read more7/17/2024
0
Can AI Relate: Testing Large Language Model Response for Mental Health Support
Saadia Gabriel, Isha Puri, Xuhai Xu, Matteo Malgaroli, Marzyeh Ghassemi
Large language models (LLMs) are already being piloted for clinical use in hospital systems like NYU Langone, Dana-Farber and the NHS. A proposed deployment use case is psychotherapy, where a LLM-powered chatbot can treat a patient undergoing a mental health crisis. Deployment of LLMs for mental health response could hypothetically broaden access to psychotherapy and provide new possibilities for personalizing care. However, recent high-profile failures, like damaging dieting advice offered by the Tessa chatbot to patients with eating disorders, have led to doubt about their reliability in high-stakes and safety-critical settings. In this work, we develop an evaluation framework for determining whether LLM response is a viable and ethical path forward for the automation of mental health treatment. Using human evaluation with trained clinicians and automatic quality-of-care metrics grounded in psychology research, we compare the responses provided by peer-to-peer responders to those provided by a state-of-the-art LLM. We show that LLMs like GPT-4 use implicit and explicit cues to infer patient demographics like race. We then show that there are statistically significant discrepancies between patient subgroups: Responses to Black posters consistently have lower empathy than for any other demographic group (2%-13% lower than the control group). Promisingly, we do find that the manner in which responses are generated significantly impacts the quality of the response. We conclude by proposing safety guidelines for the potential deployment of LLMs for mental health response.
Read more5/21/2024
0
The Challenges of Evaluating LLM Applications: An Analysis of Automated, Human, and LLM-Based Approaches
Bhashithe Abeysinghe, Ruhan Circi
Chatbots have been an interesting application of natural language generation since its inception. With novel transformer based Generative AI methods, building chatbots have become trivial. Chatbots which are targeted at specific domains for example medicine and psychology are implemented rapidly. This however, should not distract from the need to evaluate the chatbot responses. Especially because the natural language generation community does not entirely agree upon how to effectively evaluate such applications. With this work we discuss the issue further with the increasingly popular LLM based evaluations and how they correlate with human evaluations. Additionally, we introduce a comprehensive factored evaluation mechanism that can be utilized in conjunction with both human and LLM-based evaluations. We present the results of an experimental evaluation conducted using this scheme in one of our chatbot implementations which consumed educational reports, and subsequently compare automated, traditional human evaluation, factored human evaluation, and factored LLM evaluation. Results show that factor based evaluation produces better insights on which aspects need to be improved in LLM applications and further strengthens the argument to use human evaluation in critical spaces where main functionality is not direct retrieval.
Read more6/14/2024