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.

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.