A Multi-Probe Audit of Clinical-Interview Depression Detection Benchmarks
Quick Take
The paper audits clinical-interview depression detection benchmarks using multiple probes and reveals significant discrepancies in model performance.
Key Points
- Re-evaluated E-DAIC with a hybrid model achieving macro-F1 = 0.723.
- Moderate alignment between development cross-validation and official test rankings.
- Text models outperform audio models on symptom-dense interview slices.
Article Content
From source RSS / original summaryarXiv:2605. 23977v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This paper audits benchmark evaluation in clinical-interview depression detection through four complementary probes across DAIC/E-DAIC, CMDC, ANDROIDS, MODMA, and PDCH. First, we re-evaluate E-DAIC under strict subject-disjoint leave-one-subject-out cross-validation. A lightweight hybrid text-plus-LLM-score model reaches macro-F1 = 0.
723 - the highest reported under this protocol, to our knowledge - providing a conservative out-of-fold reference point that does not depend on the privileged official holdout. Second, we test whether the E-DAIC official split supports fine-grained leaderboard rankings by sweeping 96 model configurations across modality bundles, pooling strategies, and learners.
Development-side cross-validation and official-test rankings align only moderately: the best cross-validation configuration ranks twentieth on the official test, the official-test winner ranks forty-first by cross-validation, top-3 overlap is zero, and the apparent winner is rank-1 in only 32. 3% of subject bootstraps. Third, we externally validate strong public CMDC and ANDROIDS baselines that achieve near-ceiling in-domain performance. Zero-shot transfer to external corpora is substantially weaker.
Finally, we stress-test E-DAIC text and audio models using paired symptom-dense versus symptom-light interview slices defined by an SRDS-based annotator. Text scores rise sharply on symptom-dense slices, whereas audio scores remain nearly flat; the text-minus-audio gap is positive across all five seeds.
Reader Mode unavailable (could not extract clean content).
Want this in your inbox every morning?
Daily brief at your local 8am — bilingual EN/中文, free.
More from arXiv cs.CL
See more →Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents?
The reliability of LLM judges for evaluating deep research agents is critically assessed using the REFLECT benchmark.