Back to all available

Interpretable learning for detection of cognitive distortions from natural language texts

artificial-intelligence
computational-linguistics
data-mining-and-machine-learning
natural-language-and-speech
sentiment-analysis

Abstract

We developed a technology that, based on a dataset annotated for cognitive distortions, builds an interpretable model capable of detecting cognitive distortions in natural language texts. The novelty of the approach lies in the fact that the learning and detection methods are based on structural patterns such as N-grams, incorporating heterarchical relationships between them through the “priority on order” principle. We investigated and released two types of detection models: plain binary classification and a model based on a multi-class representation. We optimized the hyper-parameters of the models and achieved an accuracy of 0.92 and an F1 score of 0.95 in a cross-validation experiment. Additionally, we achieved over 1000 times higher processing speed and lower computational cost compared to LLM-based alternatives.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].