Bag of Tricks or Bag of Myths? Reducing Modeling Complexity with Task Knowledge in Explainable Suicide Risk Assessment
Researchers audit 31 NLP techniques for clinician-annotated suicide risk prediction, finding only 5 of 31 comparisons yield reliable gains.
A study of 1,635 clinician-annotated social media posts ran roughly 300 controlled experiments across 7 methodological families, auditing techniques such as model scaling, synthetic data, ensembling, and threshold tuning under severe class imbalance. The proposed system reformulates risk factor prediction as entailment between posts and codebook definitions, using architecturally diverse ensembles with class-balanced training and deployment-consistent calibration. It scores 0.8203 for risk, 0.7953 for evidence, and 0.7045 macro-F1 for factors, ranking third among 53 teams.
- Only 5 of 31 audited techniques produced reliable gains under severe class imbalance
- Risk factor prediction reformulated as entailment against codebook definitions
- Deployment-consistent calibration delivered the largest factor-system improvement
- Final composite score 0.7781, ranking third among 53 teams
Full article254 words · extracted from arxiv.org · click to collapse
Assessing suicide risk from social media text is a small-data, high-stakes setting requiring not only severity prediction but also supporting evidence and clinically relevant risk and protective factors. Yet common NLP techniques, including model scaling, synthetic data, loss reweighting, ensembling, and threshold tuning, are often applied without testing whether their gains hold up under severe class imbalance, coupled outputs, and limited author-level data. We study 1,635 clinician-annotated posts and audit 31 pre-specified techniques from 7 methodological families through roughly 300 controlled experiments on author-disjoint partitions. We found no prior audit of this playbook in this regime. The findings guide a task-grounded system for three outputs: 4-level suicide risk, evidence spans, and 24 clinical risk and protective factors. Only 5 of 31 comparisons produced reliable gains. We reformulate factor prediction as entailment between each post and its codebook definitions, using an architecturally diverse ensemble with class-balanced training and score rescaling. Risk predictions condition a 7-model evidence tagger ensemble; evidence restricts symbolic risk rules; and a difficult risk class is routed separately. The factor predictor remains independent because risk evidence provides no additional factor signal. We also correct a mismatch between validation scores used for threshold fitting and test-time ensemble scores through deployment-consistent calibration, yielding the largest improvement to the factor system. The final system achieves 0.8203 for risk, 0.7953 for evidence, and 0.7045 macro-F1 for factors, with a 0.7781 composite, ranking third among 53 teams. We call the underlying principle task-conditioned technique selection: retain techniques only when task-specific knowledge, structure, or empirical evidence justifies them.
Text extracted automatically; images, tables and formatting may be missing. Original: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.07766