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.
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.
Psychological defense mechanisms (PDMs) are unconscious cognitive processes that modulate how individuals perceive and respond to emotional distress. Automatically classifying PDMs from text is clinically valuable but severely hindered by data scarcity and class imbalance, challenges which generative augmentation alone cannot resolve without psychological grounding. In this work, we address these challenges in the PsyDefDetect shared task (BioNLP@ACL 2026) by proposing a context-aware synthetic augmentation framework combined with a hybrid classification model. Our hybrid model integrates contextual language representations with basic clinical features, along with 150 annotated defense items. Experiments demonstrate that definition quality in prompting directly governs generation fidelity and downstream performance. Our method surpasses DMRS Co-Pilot, reaching an accuracy of 58.26% (+40.25%) and a macro-F1 of 24.62% (+15.99%), thereby establishing a strong baseline for psychologically grounded defense mechanism classification in low-resource settings. Source code is available at: https://github.com/htdgv/CASA-PDC.