Latent Similarity Gaussian Processes: A Theory-Grounded Approach to Personalized Suicide-Risk Forecasting for Clinical Decision-Support

Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies provide real-time data on suicidal thoughts and behaviors, but forecasting suicide attempts remains challenging: attempts are rare, and the pathways patients take to them are heterogeneous. Here, we investigate a cohort of patients from an EMA study with recorded suicide-related events. We show that a single model fit to all patients forecasts poorly, while idiographic (per-patient) models show improvement but overfit for those with little data. Based on this result, one may hypothesize that patients should be partitioned into subgroups---this way, similar patients' data can be pooled together to improve forecasts. However, we show that grouping patients at random already improves forecasts, with performance increasing monotonically with the number of groups. Moreover, we show that grouping patients by demographics yields worse forecasts than random groupings. From these results, we hypothesize that patient similarity is continuous, rather than discrete, and must be inferred from the data. This motivated us to use Latent Variable Multiple Output Gaussian Processes (LVMOGPs), adapted to our data. Preliminary results show that, even without careful kernel design, LVMOGPs already match the strongest baseline models on most metrics, and their latent spaces yield a similarity between patients that we can inspect directly. Because the cohort is conditioned on the outcome and the splits are not temporal, we read these results as evidence that idiographic structure exists and can be recovered, not as deployable forecasting performance---an area for future work.

Assessing suicide risk from social media text is a small-data, high-stakes setting requiring not only severity prediction but also supporting evidence and clinically relevant risk and protective factors. Yet common NLP techniques, including model scaling, synthetic data, loss reweighting, ensembling, and threshold tuning, are often applied without testing whether their gains hold up under severe class imbalance, coupled outputs, and limited author-level data. We study 1,635 clinician-annotated posts and audit 31 pre-specified techniques from 7 methodological families through roughly 300 controlled experiments on author-disjoint partitions. We found no prior audit of this playbook in this regime. The findings guide a task-grounded system for three outputs: 4-level suicide risk, evidence spans, and 24 clinical risk and protective factors. Only 5 of 31 comparisons produced reliable gains. We reformulate factor prediction as entailment between each post and its codebook definitions, using an architecturally diverse ensemble with class-balanced training and score rescaling. Risk predictions condition a 7-model evidence tagger ensemble; evidence restricts symbolic risk rules; and a difficult risk class is routed separately. The factor predictor remains independent because risk evidence provides no additional factor signal. We also correct a mismatch between validation scores used for threshold fitting and test-time ensemble scores through deployment-consistent calibration, yielding the largest improvement to the factor system. The final system achieves 0.8203 for risk, 0.7953 for evidence, and 0.7045 macro-F1 for factors, with a 0.7781 composite, ranking third among 53 teams. We call the underlying principle task-conditioned technique selection: retain techniques only when task-specific knowledge, structure, or empirical evidence justifies them.

Explainable suicide-risk assessment requires models not only to estimate risk severity, but also to identify supporting language and the risk and protective factors expressed in a post. We present our system for the IEEE BigData 2026 Cup on Explainable Suicide Risk Assessment on Social Media, which addresses three tasks: risk-level classification, evidence phrase extraction, and multi-label factor identification. Our approach adapts Qwen2.5-Instruct models using quantized low-rank adaptation (QLoRA) and an answer-masked causal language-model objective. We jointly train across all three tasks for risk classification, jointly train on Tasks1a and 1b for evidence extraction, and adapt Task2 separately for factor identification. We also tailor aggregation to each output: we average risk-level probabilities from the 32B and 72B models, combine evidence phrases through cross-fold consensus, and calibrate factor-specific decisions through rate matching based on out-of-fold operating points. On the official leaderboard, the final system achieved a composite score of 0.7738, with 0.8089 on Task1 and 0.6919 on Task2. Across the evaluated configurations, three-task training performed best for Task1a, joint training on Tasks1a and 1b performed best for Task1b, and task-specific training performed best for Task2. Probability averaging further improved Task~1a when component models had complementary errors. These findings highlight the value of tailoring both training objectives and aggregation strategies to the output structure of each task within a unified language-model framework.