Evaluating Document-Tuned Transformer Representations for Person-level Mental Health Assessment

We investigate whether graded states of mind form spectrum-like structure in transformer representation spaces. To do so, we construct a dataset of 636 short natural-language sentences annotated with both a continuous score from $-5$ to $5$ and one of seven ordered tiers, ranging from collapsed or scarcity-driven expressions to more coherent, reflective, and integrative ones. We evaluate five frozen transformer representations: four sentence-embedding models and one decoder-only residual-stream representation. Across all representations, simple probes reliably recover both the continuous score and the discrete tier labels, and permutation tests show that performance significantly exceeds shuffled-label baselines. Additional analyses reveal a consistent geometric pattern: UMAP projections show low-to-high organization, confusion matrices concentrate errors between neighboring tiers, and directional ablation identifies a prominent score-aligned component. These results suggest that transformer representations contain statistically significant, spectrum-like organization aligned with the annotated state-of-mind structure. The annotations are used only as an operational framework for representation analysis, not as a clinical or diagnostic measure.

Automated mental health prediction using textual data has shown promising results with deep learning and large language models. However, deploying these models in high-stakes real-world settings remains challenging, as existing approaches largely rely on semantic representations and often produce overconfident predictions under ambiguous, noisy, or shifted data. Moreover, most methods lack reliable uncertainty estimation, undermining trust in risk-sensitive mental health applications. To address these limitations, we formulate the task as a multi-view learning problem that integrates semantic information from encoder-only models with higher-level reasoning information from decoder-only models, where reasoning-aware representations and uncertainty modeling are obtained in a trustworthy manner. To ensure reliable fusion, we adopt an evidential learning framework based on Subjective Logic to explicitly model uncertainty and introduce an evidential fusion strategy that balances complementary views while discounting unreliable evidence. Benchmarking on three real-world datasets, Dreaddit, SDCNL, and DepSeverity, reports accuracies of 0.835, 0.731, and 0.751, respectively, demonstrating its potential for reliable mental health prediction. Additional experiments on robustness to noise and case studies for interpretability confirm that our proposed framework not only improves predictive performance but also provides trustworthy uncertainty estimates and human-understandable reasoning signals, making it suitable for risk-sensitive applications in mental health assessment.

Natural Language Processing (NLP) models predicting mental health outcomes rarely specify what they measure: contextual knowledge, emotional content, or syntactic structure. NLP Psychometrics treats psychological prediction from text as a psychometric problem, linking scores to interpretable linguistic evidence and testing beyond the training text format. Nine LLMs, conditioned on controlled personas (cognitive digital shadows), completed psychometric questionnaires with textual explanations per item. We extracted emotional profiles and syntactic-semantic structure via textual forma mentis networks, combined with personality and sociodemographic variables in ablated random forest (RF) regressors, using SHAP to identify which features drove performance and in which direction. Full RF models explained up to 70.8% of variance in life satisfaction (SWLS), 55.7% in depression (PHQ-9), and, for DASS-21, 68.5% depression, 76.0% anxiety, 72.4% stress. Sociodemographics alone explained no meaningful variance in depression, anxiety, or stress, but did so for life satisfaction, where emotion features and income were the strongest predictors; neuroticism and network topology instead dominated depression and anxiety, reversing direction between them. Without retraining, RF models separated diaries from low- and high-score personas ($r$ up to 0.91) and, using only network/emotion features, classified clinical from control participants in real transcripts with up to 68% accuracy. These results show the promise and limits of synthetic data: LLM personas can expose model biases, recover patterns consistent with clinical rumination, and support psychometric prediction from human text without a matched questionnaire, but cannot substitute for human validation. NLP Psychometrics makes these distinctions explicit, measurable, and testable through interpretable AI and network/emotional features.