Organizations: Dongwu Business School, Soochow University, Suzhou, China · School of Computer Science and Technology, Soochow University, Suzhou, China · College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Mental health disorders affect hundreds of millions of people around the world, yet access to professional counseling remains severely limited. AI-powered dialogue systems offer a scalable alternative, but existing models face two fundamental challenges. First, they lack the bidirectional understanding needed to capture the layered nature of emotional expression, particularly in cases of progressive disclosure, where clients often present symptoms at the surface-level while concealing deeper trauma. Autoregressive (AR) models process information sequentially and cannot revise early interpretations when new evidence emerges later in the conversation. Second, they fail to effectively incorporate the relational knowledge that underlies clinical reasoning. In this paper, we propose BiGraph-Diffuse, the first large-scale diffusion language model tailored for the counseling domain. We further introduce BiGraph-RAG, a relation-free graph-structured retrieval strategy that relies only on lightweight entity extraction and semantic linking. This design preserves inferential pathways from observable symptoms to potential underlying causes, while incurring zero LLM token cost during indexing. Importantly, these two modules are not merely combined but mutually reinforcing. The diffusion model provides a holistic bidirectional context, enabling the system to defer premature judgments during progressive disclosure. Meanwhile, graph-based retrieval captures the structured interconnections of clinical knowledge. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of BiGraph-Diffuse, and we further provide a solid theoretical analysis to support its design.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Motivation of BiGraph-Diffuse. Left: Autoregressive models fail to suspend judgment on early defensive disclosures (e.g., insomnia) and cannot revise shallow advice when deep trauma (e.g., bullying) is later revealed. Right: Traditional RAG retrieves isolated chunks and breaks the inferential chain between surface symptoms and underlying causes.
Fig. 2: Overview of the BiGraph-Diffuse framework. The system consists of three stages: (1) Offline indexing constructs a heterogeneous Tri-Graph from authoritative psychology corpora; (2) During inference, BiGraph-RAG performs two-stage propagation over the graph to retrieve relevant knowledge; (3) The fine-tuned BiGraph-Diffuse model generates a thought process and final response conditioned on both the retrieved knowledge and dialogue history.
Model
OpenR1-Psy (English)
CPsyCounE (Chinese)
E&I
S&A
A&P
S&B
Norm. AVG
E&I
S&A
A&P
S&B
Norm. AVG
Autoregressive Baselines (No Retrieval)
CPsyCounX [ 8 ]
0.012
0.122
0.061
0.357
0.138
0.438
0.528
0.462
0.818
0.562
ChatCounselor [ 10 ]
0.020
0.207
0.110
0.470
0.202
—
—
—
—
—
MeChat [ 12 ]
0.024
0.213
0.139
0.799
0.294
0.224
0.312
0.253
0.591
0.345
PsyDTLLM [ 33 ]
0.073
0.285
0.229
0.873
0.365
0.193
0.283
0.242
0.621
0.335
TABLE I: Performance comparison on OpenR1-Psy and CPsyCounE test sets.
Fig. 3: Impact of LoRA fine-tuning and graph retrieval on normalized average score.
Model
OpenR1-Psy
CPsyCounE
Norm. AVG
Norm. AVG
PsyLLM-8B + BiGraph-RAG
0.621 ± 0.013
—
CPsyCounX + BiGraph-RAG
—
0.611 ± 0.016
PsyLLM-8B + BiGraph-RAG + Suspend
0.632 ± 0.011
—
CPsyCounX + BiGraph-RAG + Suspend
—
0.622 ± 0.012
GPT-4o + BiGraph-RAG + Suspend
0.585 ± 0.013
0.643 ± 0.013
TABLE II: AR + BiGraph-RAG + suspend-judgment prompting vs. BiGraph-Diffuse. All scores are normalized averages over 3 independent runs ( ± std).
Retrieval Backbone
OpenR1-Psy
Δ
CPsyCounE
Δ
(English)
(vs. w/o)
(Chinese)
(vs. w/o)
w/o Retrieval
0.785 ± 0.010
—
0.834 ± 0.012
—
+ Dense RAG
0.798 ± 0.012
+0.013
0.851 ± 0.013
+0.017
+ LinearRAG
0.806 ± 0.011
+0.021
0.859 ± 0.012
+0.025
+ BiGraph-RAG
0.824 ± 0.009
+0.039
0.883 ± 0.014
+0.049
TABLE III: Comparison of retrieval backbones with the same BiGraph-Diffuse generator. Δ indicates absolute gain over the no-retrieval baseline.
Fig. 4: Layperson average ranking (lower is better).
TABLE V: Quantitative analysis of retrieval quality on psychology corpus.
Metric
Simple Fact
Emp./Support
Prog. Disc.
Avg.
Relevance
0.880
0.830
0.790
0.833
Hit Rate@1
0.850
0.780
0.720
0.783
Evidence Chain Compl.
—
—
0.740
0.740
TABLE VI: Retrieval accuracy across query types.
Fig. 5: Absolute gain from BiGraph-RAG averaged across OpenR1-Psy and CPsyCounE.
Model
Integration
Revision
Sensitivity
Temporal
Norm. AVG
GPT-4o [ 35 ]
0.534
0.487
0.568
0.751
0.561
DeepSeek-V3 [ 34 ]
0.516
0.479
0.589
0.776
0.563
BiGraph-Diffuse (w/o retrieval)
0.645
0.603
0.698
0.874
0.681
BiGraph-Diffuse
0.811
0.763
0.868
0.949
0.833
TABLE VII: Performance on progressive disclosure subset (normalized 0–1 scores).
Model
Gemini
GPT-4.1 Mini
Δ
(w/ thought)
(w/o thought)
GPT-4o + BiGraph-RAG + Suspend
0.585
0.571
− 0.014
DeepSeek-V3 + BiGraph-RAG + Suspend
0.573
0.558
− 0.015
BiGraph-Diffuse (w/o retrieval)
0.785
0.778
− 0.007
BiGraph-Diffuse
0.824
0.817
− 0.007
TABLE VIII: Multi-judge comparison with and without internal thought trace. Gemini scores include thought trace; GPT-4.1 Mini scores are based on final response only.
Fig. 6: Layer-wise probing accuracy for predicting future deep disclosure from first-turn text.
UKP Lab, Department of Computer Science and Hessian Center for AI (hessian.AI), Technische Universität Darmstadt · Zuse School · National Research Center for Applied Cybersecurity ATHENE +4