Organizations: University of Technology Sydney · Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University · University of Utah · Harvard University · The University of Melbourne · The University of Manchester · ELLIS Institute Finland · University of Turku
Abstract
We present an overview of PsyDefDetect, the shared task on detecting levels of psychological defense mechanisms in emotional support dialogues, co-located with BioNLP@ACL 2026. Grounded in the clinically validated Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (DMRS) framework, the task asks systems to classify a target seeker utterance, given its preceding dialogue context, into one of nine categories: seven hierarchical DMRS levels plus two auxiliary labels. Participants worked on PsyDefConv, a newly released corpus of 200 dialogues and 2336 help-seeker utterances annotated under DMRS with substantial inter-annotator agreement. The task attracted 172 participants on CodaBench who produced 563 submissions, with 21 teams officially registering their results for the final ranking. The best system achieved a macro F1-score of 0.420, surpassing the strongest fine-tuned baseline reported in the dataset paper by a notable margin, yet leaving clear headroom. Our analysis highlights (i) a persistent tendency to over-predict the majority High-Adaptive class, (ii) a widening gap between accuracy and macro-F1 that reveals class-imbalance sensitivity, and (iii) the value of theory-aware and LLM-based approaches for fine-grained defensive-function classification. We release all task materials and invite the community to continue work on this novel intersection of clinical psychology and NLP.
Detecting levels of psychological defence mechanisms in supportive conversations is inherently ambiguous. In the PsyDefDetect shared task at BioNLP 2026 the eight positive defence categories share surface language and differ only in pragmatic function and trained raters reach only moderate inter-annotator agreement. On such a task the decisive lever is not a stronger single model but error independence, since any single representation will waver on the overlapping defence boundaries. We translate this insight into a 9-voter ensemble spanning three orthogonal axes: class granularity (all nine classes for the gatekeeper, only the eight defence classes for the specialists), training method (generative and discriminative) and base model. The system reaches F1test=.420 on the hidden test set, placing first among 21 registered teams.
Detecting psychological defense mechanisms in conversational text remains a challenging clinical NLP problem. For the PsyDefDetect 2026 shared task (nine-class utterance classification evaluated via macro F1), our team LinguIUTics achieves a macro F1-score of 0.3917 on the official positive-class leaderboard, ranking 4th out of 21 registered teams and improving over the Ministral-8B task baseline (31.48 macro F1) by 7.7 absolute points (24.4 percent relative). BERT-family encoders and zero-shot LLMs proved ineffective on rare classes due to severe class imbalance, leading us to QLoRA fine-tuning of Qwen3-8B. We leverage three key strategies: grouped stratified cross-validation (preventing leakage), minority-class round-robin lexical augmentation, and a post-processing pipeline with logit bias tuning and ensemble blending. Together, these components close much of the validation-to-leaderboard gap and substantially improve minority-class recall, driving the critical "Unclear" class (Level 8) from near-zero performance to an F1 score of 0.797.
Shefayat E Shams Adib, Ahmed Alfey Sani, Md Hasibur Rahman Alif +1
This paper describes our system for classifying psychological defense mechanisms in emotional support dialogues using the Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (DMRS), placing second (F1 0.406) among 64 teams. A central insight is that defense mechanisms are defined by what is absent: missing affect, blocked cognition, denied reality. We encode this as an affect-cognition integration spectrum in prompt-level clinical rules, which account for the largest single gain (+11.4pp F1). Our architecture is a multi-phase deliberative council of Gemini 2.5 agents where class-specific advocates rate evidence strength rather than voting, achieving F1 0.382 with no fine-tuning - a top-5 result on its own. We find, however, that the council is confidently wrong about minority classes: 59-80% of stable minority predictions are incorrect, driven by a systematic "L7 attractor" in which emotional content defaults to the majority class. A targeted override ensemble from three fine-tuned Qwen3.5 models applies 16 overrides (+2.4pp), selected by a structured multi-agent system (builder, critic, regression guard) that produced a larger F1 gain in one iteration than 8 prior attempts combined.