# Ask the experts: sourcing high-quality datasets for nutritional
counselling through Human-AI collaboration

Simone Balloccu1 Ehud Reiter2 Vivek Kumar3
Diego Reforgiato Recupero3 Daniele Riboni3
1Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Prague, CZ
2University of Aberdeen, UK 3University of Cagliari, Italy
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
{vivek.kumar, diego.reforgiato<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
###### Abstract

_Large Language Models_ (_LLMs_), with their flexible generation abilities,
can be powerful data sources in domains with few or no available corpora.
However, problems like hallucinations and biases limit such applications. In
this case study, we pick nutrition counseling, a domain lacking any public
resource, and show that high-quality datasets can be gathered by combining
_LLMs_ , crowd-workers and nutrition experts. We first crowd-source and
cluster a novel dataset of diet-related issues, then work with experts to
prompt ChatGPT into producing related supportive text. Finally, we let the
experts evaluate the safety of the generated text. We release HAI-Coaching,
the first expert-annotated nutrition counseling dataset containing $\sim$2.4K
dietary struggles from crowd workers, and $\sim$97K related supportive texts
generated by ChatGPT. Extensive analysis shows that ChatGPT while producing
highly fluent and human-like text, also manifests harmful behaviours,
especially in sensitive topics like mental health, making it unsuitable for
unsupervised use. HAI-Coaching is available at
https://github.com/uccollab/hai-coaching.

Ask the experts: sourcing high-quality datasets for nutritional
counselling through Human-AI collaboration

Simone Balloccu1 Ehud Reiter2 Vivek Kumar3 Diego Reforgiato Recupero3 Daniele
Riboni3 1Charles University, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Prague, CZ
2University of Aberdeen, UK 3University of Cagliari, Italy
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>{vivek.kumar, diego.reforgiato,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

##  1 Introduction

In recent years, _Large Language Models_ (_LLMs_) has become increasingly
popular in NLP for their ability to produce fluent text by following textual
instructions (prompts). This flexibility makes them appealing tools for
generating synthetic data when publicly available corpora or datasets are
lacking. However, it is known (Bender et al., 2021; Ji et al., 2023) that
generating text with _LLMs_ comes with risks like hallucinations, and biased
or harmful text generation. This is especially dangerous in sensitive domains,
like healthcare, raising an interesting research question: how can _LLMs_ be
safely used for generating data in such cases? In this work, we present a case
study in the domain of nutrition counseling, for which no public resource is
available, and source high-quality data by _Human-AI_ (_HAI_) collaboration.
We leverage the collaboration of crowd workers, nutrition experts, and ChatGPT
to generate supportive text for diet-related problems. The following is a
summary of our contributions:

  1. 1.

We present a case study on sourcing nutrition counseling datasets from _LLMs_
and humans through _HAI_ collaboration. We detail our process at each stage,
from defining the actual content of the dataset (Sections 3 and 4), to
sourcing it and evaluating it (Section 5).

  2. 2.

We present HAI-Coaching (Section 6), the first expert-annotated dataset for
nutrition counseling, obtained through _Human-AI_ collaboration, and
containing $\sim$98K supportive texts generated by ChatGPT over $\sim$2.4K
crowdsourced nutrition-related issues.

  3. 3.

We provide an extensive quantitative (Section 6.1) and qualitative (Section
6.2) analysis of HAI-Coaching, revealing both positive aspects of ChatGPT,
like fluency and human-likeness, and negative ones, including generating
useless text, harmful behaviours, and reinforcing dangerous stereotypes from
online sources.

Figure 1: Overview i of the supportive text categories created with the
experts.

##  2 Related work

Using _LLMs_ to address situations of data scarcity is a relatively novel
task, that features two main lines of work.

First, there is a body of work using _LLMs_ to generate completely new
datasets, usually from scratch or from a small batch of manually labelled
data. DINO (Schick and Schütze, 2021) generates labelled sentence pairs by
emulating the generation of NLI datasets, with GPT-2-XL in place of human
annotators. Similarly, WaNLI (Liu et al., 2022) first uses GPT-3 to generate
challenging NLI examples, which are then revised by human experts. ToxiGen
(Hartvigsen et al., 2022) is an anti-hate-speech dataset built by prompting
GPT-3. GPTNERMED (Frei and Kramer, 2022) is dataset of medical text in German,
obtained by prompting GPT-NeoX (Meng et al., 2022). PersonaCHATGen (Lee et
al., 2022b) is a persona-based dialogue dataset obtained by prompting GPT-3
into impersonating different personas talking to each other. GPT-3-ENS
(Chintagunta et al., 2021) generates data for medical summarization by
combining an in-domain custom entity extractor with GPT-3. CoAuthor (Lee et
al., 2022a) is an assistive writing dataset sourced by having humans write the
beginning of a story, GPT-3 generating suggestions for completing it, and
humans finalising it with eventual post-editing. Another study (Hämäläinen et
al., 2023) used GPT-3 for generating synthetic user studies results, by asking
it to complete fictionary dialogues between a game developer and a beta
tester, expressing various opinions on the game. Quasi (Kalpakchi and Boye,
2023) is a dataset of multiple-choice questions (MCQ) in Swedish sourced from
GPT-3.

Second, there is work augmenting existing datasets through _LLMs_. AugESC
(Zheng et al., 2022) is an Emotional Support Conversation (ESC) dataset
obtained by first fine-tuning GPT-J on an existing dataset and then prompting
it to further expand it, resulting in an x45 augmentation. InPars (Bonifacio
et al., 2022; Jeronymo et al., 2023) generates Information-Retrieval (IR) data
by first few-shots prompting GPT-3 with sampled examples from existing
datasets, and then asking it to generate missing queries for given documents.
Another work (Sahu et al., 2022) inspects few-shots prompting GPT-3 for
generating intent classification data, with a similar approach. GPT3Mix (Yoo
et al., 2021) augments text classification datasets by few-shot prompting
GPT-3 on a task (e.g.: "movie_review_sentiment"), a list of possible labels
and some examples. CoNDA (Mekala et al., 2022) uses _LLMs_ as context
generators by first fine-tuning them on public QA datasets.

##  3 Sourcing _Human-AI_ nutrition counseling data

Nutrition Counseling (Vrkatić et al., 2022) is defined as the process where
someone struggling with their diet or a related topic (the client) receives
personalized guidance and suggestions (usually from registered dietitians) to
overcome it. This domain greatly suffers from data scarcity, as data gathered
by companies is typically kept confidential, and scraping public forums is not
viable for data privacy regulation and the risk of capturing incorrect (or
even harmful) information from unreliable sources (Savolainen, 2010). We
propose employing both _LLMs_ and humans (experts and not) to create a public
dataset, framing our process as an instance of _Human-AI_ (_HAI_)
collaboration. In doing so, we explore three main research questions (RQ):

###### RQ3:

Requirement analysis: What data should be gathered?

###### RQ3:

Allocation: What roles should _LLMs_ and humans have in the process?

###### RQ3:

Evaluation: How should the dataset quality be assessed?

##  4 Requirement analysis

As for RQ3, we need to identify what text is relevant and useful in nutrition
counseling. A clear starting point is the issue the client is "struggling"
with, therefore we define it as:

######  Struggle:

A difficult situation, challenge or issue that someone is experiencing with
any topic having a direct or indirect effect on their diet.

We then explore what text can help overcome struggles by interviewing 2
nutrition experts on the main practices applied in nutrition counselling. We
report full experts’ details in Appendix B. We skim and cross-check experts’
outputs with related work on behaviour change and counselling, like surveys
(van Agteren et al., 2021), NLP applications (Moyers et al., 2003, 2010; Wu et
al., 2022), pre-existing taxonomies (Michie et al., 2013) and definitions
(Burleson and Goldsmith, 1996; Hall and Slembrouck, 2013; Barnett et al.,
2014). As a result, we identify a process with 4 main elements following the
struggle (Figure 1):

######  Reflection:

A short summary of user’s statements to convey that they are being heard and
understood. (Moyers et al., 2003)

######  Comfort:

Positively supporting the person dealing with the struggle, making them feel
understood. (Burleson and Goldsmith, 1996)

######  Reframing:

Helping the person dealing with the struggle see the situation in a more
positive way. (Barnett et al., 2014)

######  Suggestion:

Providing practical advice, helping the person dealing with the struggle.
(Hall and Slembrouck, 2013)

The above categories (except "struggles") are from now on referred to as
"supportive text". While the experts confirmed that they satisfactorily answer
RQ3, they also noted that they do not fully substitute nutrition counseling,
but rather constitute a simpler process, suitable for assisting specialists.
Therefore, this is the use case around which we create our dataset.

##  5 Allocation and Evaluation

Next, we address RQ3, that is identifying _LLMs_ and humans’ role in data
collection. For each case, we also address RQ3 (evaluation).

###  5.1 Struggles allocation and evaluation

We choose to source struggles from people as 1) human-generated text is still
considered the gold standard in terms of quality and representativeness, and
2) _LLMs_ output quality highly depends on their training data (which can be
biased, limited or undisclosed). More generally, the scope of our work is to
evaluate if _LLMs_ can safely support people with their dietary struggles, not
if they are able to impersonate such people.

We recruit crowdworkers111From now on also referred to as ”workers”. from
Amazon Mechanical Turk and Prolific222mturk.com and prolific.co, asking them
to write about 3 individual struggles they experienced related to diet,
healthy eating, or other related topics. We also capture workers’
demographics: we do not release these because of data protection but we do
report an overview in Appendix D. We also provide complete info on the
interface we used in Appendix C, and full ethics statement (including
recruitment, workload, and pay) in Appendix A.

After sanity check we accept the work of 816 workers between the two
platforms, for a total of 2448 individual struggles, highly varying in length
(min = 4; max = 152; avg=36 words).

Figure 2: Top-5 4-grams for the gathered struggles (before topic modelling).
Figure 3: Top-5 4-grams for the 4 biggest clusters created in collaboration
with experts. Table 1: Clusters obtained from topic modelling, in
collaboration with experts. For each extracted topic we report how many
struggles they contain and the relative percentage across all obtained
struggles ("Size").

l c c CLUSTERS
Cluster Size Topics
CRAVING_HABIT 429 (17.7%) habits of eating unhealthy; recurrent cravings for
unhealthy food (e.g. snacking);
ENERGY_EFFORT_CONVENIENCE 380 (15.7%) unhealthy choices being more convenient;
lack of time; lack of effort or tiredness;
EMOTIONS 340 (14%) unhealthy choices driven by feelings; emotional eating;
food FOMO
SOCIAL 322 (13.3%) social pressure (e.g. invitations to eat out, friends,
family);
MOTIVATION 257 (10.6%) lack of motivation in pursuing a healthy lifestyle;
PORTION_CONTROL 190 (7.9%) eating the wrong amount of food; irregular eating
patterns; portion over/underestimation;
SITUATIONAL 125 (5.2%) external factors independent from willpower, including
living area, budget and work schedule;
MENTAL_HEALTH 101 (4.2%) struggles attributable to mental health, including
eating disorders; depression; anorexia; anxiety;
NOT_APPLICABLE 98 (4%) text related to diet and healthy lifestyle, but are not
struggles; struggles with little to no description.
DIET_PLAN_ISSUES 95 (3.9%) issues with specific diet/workout plan;
unsustainable, wrong or extreme diet/workout;
KNOWLEDGE 44 (1.8%) lifestyle impacted by lack of knowledge about food and
exercise; low nutrition literacy;
PHYS_HEALTH_CONDITION 39 (1.6%) healthy lifestyle affected by the presence of
a medical condition.

####  5.1.1 Evaluating the struggles

Our sanity checks (more info in Appendix C) can only exclude fraudulent
workers, which do not automatically translate to high-quality data. Therefore,
we ask the experts for guidance, who suggest measuring if the text
is"representative" (assuring it reflects the real world) and "varied"
(covering as many topics as possible). As these requirements are inherently
ambiguous, we take a mixed approach, using both automatic analysis and
querying the experts. First, we analyse struggles’ n-grams (Figure 2), finding
few topics dominating the data, mainly mentioning temptation and willpower.
Since n-grams alone are not enough to draw conclusions, we perform topic
modeling (Vayansky and Kumar, 2020), by clustering struggles covering similar
topics together. We start from automatic clustering, combining HDBSCAN
(Campello et al., 2013) and UMAP (Becht et al., 2019)333Original approach
here., which however results in polluted and imbalanced clusters. We report a
detailed overview of our automatic clustering and its results in Appendix E.
To improve topic separation, we then perform thematic analysis (Braun and
Clarke, 2012) in collaboration with the experts. We manually inspect each
automatically obtained cluster, summarize their topics, and then manually re-
arrange them under the experts’ guidance. This results in 19 manually defined
clusters, which we merge with further expert assistance (details in Appendix
E) into 12, shown in Section 5.1.

To check if our approach improved topic separation, we re-analyse n-grams on
the new clusters (Figure 3). Results appear positive: for example, the cluster
CRAVING_HABIT shows lots of reference to temptation; ENERGY_EFFORT_CONVENIENCE
refers to struggles in finding time or will; EMOTIONS focuses on stress and
feelings; SOCIAL mentions friends and invitations. Moreover, after getting
access to the text when helping us with clustering, experts themselves
confirmed the obtained struggles are high quality and representative of the
real world.

####  5.1.2 Qualitative analysis

Trigger warning: The content of this section may be disturbing or offensive
for some readers.

Following manual inspection of the struggles, we report some interesting
insights. First, we find that unhealthy choices were sometimes influenced by
external factors, like living area, budget, health conditions or caring
responsibilities:

> _"There aren’t many shops in my rural area…"_

> _"Due to reflux, I cannot eat some food, but I still eat it sometimes
> because I don’t know what to eat and don’t have money…"_

> _"I’m in charge of my mother with dementia […] This makes it very difficult
> to establish an exercise routine…"_

Many workers discussed struggles related to mental health:

> _"…near my parents […] I don’t feel loved by them and need somehow to fill
> the void with food…"_

> _"…after eating it I feel unattractive and disgusting…"_

This raises important ethical questions about the use of this data. We align
with previous work (Le Glaz et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2023) and stress that
using this data must undergo thorough ethical assessment when implementing "AI
counsellors" or similar use-cases. 444Further relevant discussion here.

Finally, we report an inherent ambiguity in many struggles. For example, the
struggle below matches budgeting problems (SITUATIONAL), family issues
(SOCIAL) and demotivation (MOTIVATION):

> _" Healthy food is very expensive and this is a factor that I struggle with
> as I feel as though I am spending too much money buying healthy groceries
> that not every member of my family likes or eats. This demotivates me from
> eating healthily sometimes."_

###  5.2 Supportive text allocation and evaluation

For allocation (RQ3) we choose to source supportive text from _LLMs_ as 1)
sourcing an adequate amount of supportive statements from humans was
infeasible and 2) this is the last stage where LLM can be employed for
generation. For each struggle, our goal is to generate a tuple containing
multiple candidates for each supportive text (reflections, comforting,
reframing and suggestion statements).

Obtaining the supportive text from _LLMs_ implies the need for prompt
engineering (Liu et al., 2023), as recent models tend to be very sensitive to
prompts variations (Lu et al., 2022). Nutrition Counselling is also a
sensitive domain, so each supportive text must be evaluated in terms of
safety, to reduce the risk of causing harm. Domain knowledge is necessary for
doing this, and can also help with crafting adequate prompts, so we once again
collaborate with nutrition experts555From now on also referred to as
”annotators”. Since previous experts could not help us because of work
commitments, we recruit 13 new ones (details in Appendix B) to contribute to
both prompt engineering and safety assessment.

##### Generation

For generating supportive text, we choose ChatGPT OpenAI  (GPT 3.5, accessed
between November 2022 and January 2023). During prompt engineering, struggles
collection was still running, so no data was available to prompt ChatGPT yet.
We address this by manually extracting a set of dietary struggles from
Reddit666Cherry-picked posts from r/loseit, r/fitness, r/getdisciplined,
r/bodybuilding, r/Nutrition, r/slowcooking and r/healthyfood. We do not
release this data for privacy reasons but do report some examples.

Figure 4: Expert-guided prompt engineering cycle.

##### Prompt engineering

We follow an iterative process (Figure 4): we start by developing our own set
of prompts (one for each supportive text category), use it to generate a small
batch of supportive text and send it to experts; they mark it on safety,
through a binary annotation task; discuss and compare their annotation
together; we then improve the prompts after experts’ feedback and start the
cycle again. Our full set of prompts (before and after prompt engineering) and
further details can be found in Appendix F.

##### Safety annotation

We found no pointers in the literature matching our use case, mainly because
the safety of a specific statement depends on the topic, school of thought and
client sensitivity. Therefore, we do not define "safety", and ask each expert
to annotate it based on their professional background. We then leave the job
of "aligning" the various concepts of safety to the discussion that experts
have when comparing their annotations. The idea is that this process starts
from a generic concept of "safety", and then progressively models it after
annotators’ expertise and reciprocal interaction into a specific one.

####  5.2.1 Results from prompt engineering

##### ChatGPT’s generation capabilities

ChatGPT generally produced fluent and in-context output (Table 2), but with
some caveats. Initially, experts consistently disagreed on reflections’ safety
because ChatGPT assumed users’ feelings (see reflection example in Table 2).
This behaviour was, however, because of one specific version of our prompts
explicitly asking for feelings understanding, in light of the importance of
empathy in reflective listening (Braillon and Taiebi, 2020). Since ChatGPT’s
tone was too aggressive and never changed regardless of prompt changes,
experts suggested removing it and introducing "comfort" statements instead.
Experts also helped with prompts wording and structure tuning and provided
multiple slots that we used to instruct ChatGPT on how to start the sentence,
to further reduce chances of harmful output. Table 2 also shows an example of
unsafe output, (reframing for Struggle 2) telling the user that being short is
an advantage in terms of weight maintenance, which is false; it also states
that healthy choices are more important than "simply trying to eat more", an
accusatory and unnecessarily aggressive statement.

Table 2: Examples of ChatGPT Safe, unsafe, and unclear output. We consider
experts majority voting.
ChatGPT
---
Struggle 1: "My own refusal to eat better. I eat better and exercise, but I
still just choose smaller amounts of crap to shovel down the food hole."
Reflection (unclear): "So, you mean that you eat healthier foods and exercise,
but still indulge in unhealthy habits at times? Is this making you feel
frustrated or disappointed with yourself?"
Struggle 2: "My frustration is that I’m short, so I can’t eat a lot!"
Reframing (unsafe): "Try seeing the bright side: Being short can actually be
an advantage when it comes to maintaining a healthy weight, since you have a
smaller calorie requirement. Try taking this as a lesson: Being mindful of
portion sizes and making healthy choices can be more important for weight
management than simply trying to eat more."
Struggle 3: "Haven’t been able to keep diet/intake consistently low enough to
see results so far."
Suggestion (safe): "It’s completely normal to have ups and downs when trying
to maintain a healthy lifestyle. It could be helpful to try breaking your
goals down into smaller, more achievable steps."

##### Effect of different prompting strategies

We also report trying multiple prompting strategies, including chain-of-
thought prompting (Wei et al., 2022) and impersonation (e.g. "Imagine you are
a helpful dietitian"), but these never produced significantly different
outputs, so we dropped it during internal testing. We speculate this could be
caused by the lack of publicly available data on our topic.

##### The concept of safety

Experts debated a lot on whether safety meant no (even remote) risk of harm or
a threshold ("no realistic harm"). After extensive group discussion, this was
addressed with the following definition:

######  Safe statement:

A candidate matching its category definition and not posing a realistic risk
of physical/psychological harm for the reader.

##### Annotation agreement

After prompt engineering, we check Inter Annotator Agreement (IAA) on the
small batches that annotators worked with, finding (Table 3) moderate to
substantial agreement except for reflections, due to the internal discussion
about feelings assumption. We consider these values as proof that our prompt
engineering process succeeded in aligning annotators’ concept of safety and
maximising output quality.

Table 3: Annotation agreement for reflections (REFL), reframings (REFR) and
suggestions (SUGG) during prompt engineering. We note that Randolph Kappa
should be preferred as annotators had no knowledge of label distribution.
Thresholds for agreement are reported in the lower table.

| REFL | REFR | SUGG
---|---|---|---
Fleiss $\kappa$ | 0.02 | 0.55 | 0.2
Randolph $\kappa$ | 0.22 | 0.74 | 0.66

Agreement | Slight | Fair | Moderate | Substantial
---|---|---|---|---
Thresholds | 0.01 – 0.20 | 0.21 – 0.40 | 0.41 – 0.60 | 0.61 – 0.80

Table 4: Safety annotation results. For each cluster, we report count and
percentage of safe candidates (Safe) from ChatGPT, and count of candidates
provided by experts (Exp). For each column, highest$\uparrow$ and
lowest$\downarrow$ values are highlighted. NOT_APPLICABLE not included;
EN_EFF_CONV = ENERGY_EFFORT_CONVENIENCE; PHYS_HEALTH_COND =
PHYS_HEALTH_CONDITION.

|p3.5cm|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c| REFLECTION COMFORT REFRAMING SUGGESTION
Cluster (Size) Safe Exp Safe Exp Safe Exp Safe Exp
CRAVING_HABIT (17.7%) 3622 (84.43%) 12 3449 (80.40%) 9 3626 (84.52%) 17 3637
(84.78%) 54$\uparrow$
EN_EFF_CONV (15.7%) 3307 (87.03%) 15 3221 (84.76%) 11$\uparrow$ 3223 (84.82%)
25$\uparrow$ 3378 (88.89%) 45
EMOTIONS (14%) 2990 (87.94%) 14 2823 (83.03%) 5 2906 (85.47%) 13 2953 (86.85%)
53
SOCIAL (13.3%) 2805 (87.11%) 16$\uparrow$ 2575 (79.97%) 10 2644 (82.11%) 16
2635 (81.83%) 41
MOTIVATION (10.6%) 2294 (89.26%) 11 2217 (86.26%) 4 2254 (87.70%) 16 2276
(88.56%) 36
PORTION_CONTROL (7.9%) 1610 (84.74%) 7 1514 (79.68%) 9 1522 (80.11%) 18 1587
(83.53%) 39
SITUATIONAL (5.2%) 1170 (93.60%)$\uparrow$ 1 1139 (91.12%)$\uparrow$ 2 1090
(87.20%) 6 1148 (91.84%)$\uparrow$ 18
MENTAL_HEALTH (4.2%) 822 (81.39%)$\downarrow$ 4 784 (77.62%)$\downarrow$ 5 777
(76.93%)$\downarrow$ 6 817 (80.89%)$\downarrow$ 14
DIET_PLAN_ISSUES (3.9%) 826 (86.95%) 4 781 (82.21%) 6 765 (80.53%) 6 799
(84.11%) 15
KNOWLEDGE (1.8%) 394 (89.55%) 2 356 (80.91%) 2 391 (88.86%)$\uparrow$
1$\downarrow$ 381 (86.59%) 6
PHYS_HEALTH_COND (1.6%) 337 (86.41%) 0$\downarrow$ 310 (79.49%) 1$\downarrow$
329 (84.36%) 1$\downarrow$ 335 (85.90%) 2$\downarrow$

Table 5: Mass annotation agreement for reflections (REFL), comforts (COMF),
reframings (REFR) and suggestions (SUGG).

| REFL | COMF | REFR | SUGG
---|---|---|---|---
Fleiss $\kappa$ | 0.53 | 0.42 | 0.38 | 0.50
Randolph $\kappa$ | 0.77 | 0.67 | 0.63 | 0.75

Agreement | Slight | Fair | Moderate | Substantial
---|---|---|---|---
Thresholds | 0.01 – 0.20 | 0.21 – 0.40 | 0.41 – 0.60 | 0.61 – 0.80

###  5.3 Mass generation and annotation

Using the final prompts, we generate 10 reflection, comfort, reframing, and
suggestion candidates with ChatGPT for each one of the 2448 struggles. This
equals 40 candidates per struggle and 97920 candidates globally. We then
shuffle all candidates and equally split them among the 13 experts to annotate
their safety. Experts annotated each candidate they received through a binary
safety label, and could optionally write up to 3 alternative candidates for
each category themselves. To check IAA, we sample 400 supportive statements
and include them in each expert’s workload. After annotation, we consider
majority voting for this sample. We provide further details on the annotation
task in Appendix C. After finishing the task, annotators were asked to rate
the text they saw on a set of metrics (we detail results for this evaluation
in Appendix H). Finally, each annotator was invited to a private interview to
provide further insights.

##  6 The HAI-Coaching dataset

With expert mass annotation concluded, we release HAI-Coaching, the first
publicly available777https://github.com/uccollab/hai-coaching expert-annotated
dataset for nutrition counseling.

###  6.1 Quantitative analysis

IAA (Table 5) over the sampled 400 candidates shows substantial agreement for
each text category, re-confirming that experts aligned over the definition of
safety. On average, an impressive $\sim$85% of the candidates were safe
according to experts (Section 5.2.1), regardless of the topic, for a total of
79528 safe supportive statements. MENTAL_HEALTH always features the lowest
amount of safe candidates, implying bigger challenges for ChatGPT in such
sensitive cases. SITUATIONAL has the highest percentage of safe reflection,
comfort and suggestions, while KNOWLEDGE features the highest percentage of
safe reframings. While percentages in Section 5.2.1 are similar across topics,
cluster size should be taken into account. For minority topics, annotators saw
much fewer candidates, and ChatGPT might not have seen a struggles sample that
was challenging or representative enough. Overall, ChatGPT worked best for
reflections, comfort, and suggestions for struggles out of clients’ control,
and reframing in cases of low nutrition literacy. The most challenging domain
was mental health (the fourth smallest cluster). Section 5.2.1 also shows
annotators rarely providing their own supportive text. This may have happened
because of the high annotation workload ($\sim$7530 candidates per annotator).

###  6.2 Qualitative analysis

Quantitatively, ChatGPT seems a highly capable model for nutrition counseling.
This seems to be further confirmed by experts’ ratings on the final
questionnaire, which we detail in Appendix H. Experts praised the text
structure and considered reframings the most useful category, as people often
need different viewpoints on their struggles. Comfort and suggestions were
also appreciated, for normalizing struggles and providing practical help.
Reflections were often considered a "lazy" repetition of the struggle. Some
experts noticed an occasional inconsistency in reframings, and comforting
statements just adopting a fixed "do not feel bad if…" formula.

Table 6: Examples of problematic behaviour emerging from ChatGPT. We provide
cherry-picked struggles for which model replies were considered problematic by
experts and report a skimmed version of their comments. Example 1 - Useless
text
---
Struggle: “I have become lazy in the cold weather and do not exercise enough
for the calories I am consuming .”
ChatGPT: "You could try setting reminders or alarms to remind yourself to
exercise."
Comment: Useless suggestion since this problem is related to willpower.
Example 2 - overdiagnosis
Struggle “Eating out at fast food restaurants is my way of treating myself
after accomplishing some task. I am so used to celebrating this way it seems
impossible to stop. If I don’t treat myself to some greasy food, I don’t feel
like I gave myself a proper reward.”
ChatGPT: "So, are you saying that you feel like you are stuck in this pattern
of using fast food as a reward?"
Comment: It is very dangerous to tell the client they are <<stuck>> in a
<<pattern>>.
Example 3 - reinforcing client’s beliefs
Struggle: “[…] organic healthy foods cost more. I struggled to follow my diet
due to insufficient funds. That was very stressful for me, so I had to get a
new Job."
ChatGPT: “It could be helpful to try finding ways to cut costs in other areas
of your budget so that you can allocate more towards healthy eating.”
Comment: Healthy living can be achieved without buying organic food. Putting
additional financial burdens on the client is useless, if not dangerous.
Example 4 - harmful suggestions
Struggle: “I have depression and anxiety disorder so I’m in treatment. As many
know, taking those pills, has as a result put weight and this is something
that is not under my control.”
ChatGPT: “It could be helpful to keep track of what you eat and your physical
activity in a journal to identify patterns and make adjustments.”
Comment: Very dangerous suggestion for someone being treated for depression.

However, interviews with annotators (we report additional details in Appendix
G) also reveal problematic and even harmful behaviours emerging from ChatGPT.
First, annotators reported ChatGPT often producing "safe but useless" text
(Table 6, Example 1) cycling around the same generic advice or ignoring the
struggle entirely. The experts noted that ChatGPT lacks knowledge about the
client, unlike doctors who usually get to know their patients better with
time. This means that the $\sim$85% of safe candidates includes a consistent
amount of useless ones. Experts also warned about ChatGPT occasionally over-
analyzing struggles, ending up with overdiagnosis (Table 6, Example 2).

ChatGPT always assumed the user was right, and reinforced dietary
myths/stereotypes if they were written in the struggles (Table 6, Example 3).
Another issue was that ChatGPT never refused to provide help even when unable
to, often resulting in harmful suggestions especially on sensitive matters
like mental health (Table 6, Example 4). Dangerous diet culture elements were
recurrent, like pushing a "everyone deals with that, just try harder" logic,
or proposing rewards for diet adherence, a dangerous habit that is linked to
eating disorders. ChatGPT also occasionally exposed an accusatory tone,
emphasizing users’ mistakes or negative feelings like guilt and shame. The
experts claimed this may be a sign that ChatGPT is trained on unchecked text
from internet forums, which rarely comes from trained professionals.

The experts proposed various mitigation strategies, like redirecting users to
a specialist in case of sensitive matters and preventing people with a history
of eating disorders or mental health conditions from using the technology.
Another suggestion was using trusted scientific articles for model training.
HAI-Coaching itself was considered a good mitigation tool thanks to its
annotation. While annotators considered HAI-Coaching useful for human studies,
assisting healthcare staff, training purposes, and writing assistants for
nutritionists, they unanimously agreed that ChatGPT is not ready for
unsupervised deployment.

##  7 Conclusion and future work

In this case study, we showed that nutrition counseling data scarcity can be
addressed by sourcing real-world data from crowdworkers and prompting _LLMs_
with the help of experts. The result is the HAI-Coaching dataset, which we
publicly release, containing $\sim 2.4k$ crowdsourced and clustered diet-
related struggles, and $\sim 97k$ ChatGPT-generated supportive texts annotated
on safety by a team of nutrition experts. ChatGPT showed impressive generation
capabilities, but experts pointed out critical elements, like lack of
struggles understanding, low-quality training data and reinforcing harmful
stereotypes. The unanimous verdict was that ChatGPT is not ready for
unsupervised deployment.

For future work, we first plan to inspect the practical applications of the
dataset. This work mainly covered our efforts in creating HAI-Coaching, but we
do provide an early assessment (Appendix I) for both classification and
generation tasks. Also, we plan to do an additional annotation to exclude safe
but useless candidates that the experts reported. Finally, we limited our
study to ChatGPT because of time constraints and lack of comparable models at
the time, but do commit to testing the generation capabilities of the recently
released open _LLMs_ , such as LLama-2 (Touvron et al., 2023), Mystral (Jiang
et al., 2023) and Zephyr (Tunstall et al., 2023).

##  8 Acknowledgements

This work has been funded by the EC in the H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie
PhilHumans project (contract no. 812882) and the European Research Council
(Grant agreement No. 101039303 NG-NLG).

We also thank Dr Rachael Tatman for her insightful suggestions and all the
involved nutrition experts for their contribution.

##  9 Limitations

The main limitation of our work is indeed the model choice: ChatGPT is a
proprietary _LLMs_ , and the inability to access model weights and other
details makes it impossible to further analyze its behaviour. Besides that,
ChatGPT is being regularly updated, meaning that our results (Nov 2022 - Jan
2023) might not reflect the model’s current behaviour. One example of this is
the mental health domain: OpenAI progressively implemented several safety
measures to minimize the risk of harm, meaning that ChatGPT may now refuse to
assist with such sensitive matters. This inherently makes our results hard to
reproduce, but given the increasing relevance of ChatGPT in NLP research, we
consider them useful to assess its performance. Moreover, HAI-Coaching
constitutes a comparison point for researchers who want to re-run our analysis
on the newer versions of the model. We also note that, at the time of running
our experiments, ChatGPT was the only model able to produce usable text in our
domain.

Another limitation of our study is that we limited our experiments to only one
language: all struggles are written in English and the same goes for the
supportive text. We acknowledge the importance of developing assistive
technology for low-resource languages (and languages besides English in
general), but could not hire fluent speakers of other languages (or expert
translators) because of time and resource limits. We commit to translating
HAI-Coaching in other languages in future.

Finally, we showed that some topics covered by the struggles (e.g. mental
health or physical health conditions) are indeed underrepresented in HAI-
Coaching. This means that our results may not apply the same way across the
whole dataset. For example, we found out that 86% of the candidate reflections
were safe when the struggles covered physical health conditions affecting the
client’s lifestyle. However, this cluster constitutes less than 2% of HAI-
Coaching, hence ChatGPT had much less chance of generating good (or bad)
outputs. At the same time, experts saw much fewer candidates. In future, we
commit to further expanding HAI-Coaching, to re-balance minority topics. This
may be done by re-applying our procedures for underrepresented thematics or
using data augmentation (Kumar. et al., 2023).

## References

  * Barnett et al. (2014) Elizabeth Barnett, Donna Spruijt-Metz, Theresa B Moyers, Caitlin Smith, Louise A Rohrbach, Ping Sun, and Steve Sussman. 2014.  Bidirectional relationships between client and counselor speech: the importance of reframing.  _Psychology of Addictive Behaviors_ , 28(4):1212.
  * Becht et al. (2019) Etienne Becht, Leland McInnes, John Healy, Charles-Antoine Dutertre, Immanuel WH Kwok, Lai Guan Ng, Florent Ginhoux, and Evan W Newell. 2019.  Dimensionality reduction for visualizing single-cell data using umap.  _Nature biotechnology_ , 37(1):38–44.
  * Bender et al. (2021) Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021.  On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?  In _Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency_ , pages 610–623.
  * Bonifacio et al. (2022) Luiz Bonifacio, Hugo Abonizio, Marzieh Fadaee, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2022.  Inpars: Unsupervised dataset generation for information retrieval.  In _Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval_ , pages 2387–2392.
  * Braillon and Taiebi (2020) Alain Braillon and Françoise Taiebi. 2020.  Practicing “reflective listening” is a mandatory prerequisite for empathy.  _Patient education and counseling_ , 103(9):1866–1867.
  * Braun and Clarke (2012) Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2012.  _Thematic analysis._ American Psychological Association.
  * Burleson and Goldsmith (1996) Brant R Burleson and Daena J Goldsmith. 1996.  How the comforting process works: Alleviating emotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals.  In _Handbook of communication and emotion_ , pages 245–280. Elsevier.
  * Campello et al. (2013) Ricardo JGB Campello, Davoud Moulavi, and Jörg Sander. 2013.  Density-based clustering based on hierarchical density estimates.  In _Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining: 17th Pacific-Asia Conference, PAKDD 2013, Gold Coast, Australia, April 14-17, 2013, Proceedings, Part II 17_ , pages 160–172. Springer.
  * Chintagunta et al. (2021) Bharath Chintagunta, Namit Katariya, Xavier Amatriain, and Anitha Kannan. 2021.  Medically aware gpt-3 as a data generator for medical dialogue summarization.  In _Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference_ , pages 354–372. PMLR.
  * Cochran and Tesser (2014) Winona Cochran and Abraham Tesser. 2014.  The" what the hell" effect: Some effects of goal proximity and goal framing on performance.  In _Striving and feeling_ , pages 99–120. Psychology Press.
  * Dennis et al. (2020) Sean A Dennis, Brian M Goodson, and Christopher A Pearson. 2020.  Online worker fraud and evolving threats to the integrity of mturk data: A discussion of virtual private servers and the limitations of ip-based screening procedures.  _Behavioral Research in Accounting_ , 32(1):119–134.
  * Devlin et al. (2018) Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018.  Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805_.
  * Dodge et al. (2022) Jesse Dodge, Taylor Prewitt, Remi Tachet des Combes, Erika Odmark, Roy Schwartz, Emma Strubell, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, Noah A Smith, Nicole DeCario, and Will Buchanan. 2022.  Measuring the carbon intensity of ai in cloud instances.  In _2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency_ , pages 1877–1894.
  * Frei and Kramer (2022) Johann Frei and Frank Kramer. 2022.  Annotated dataset creation through general purpose language models for non-english medical nlp.
  * Hall and Slembrouck (2013) Christopher Hall and Stef Slembrouck. 2013.  Advice-giving.  In _Analysing Social Work Communication_ , pages 98–116. Routledge.
  * Hämäläinen et al. (2023) Perttu Hämäläinen, Mikke Tavast, and Anton Kunnari. 2023.  Evaluating large language models in generating synthetic hci research data: a case study.  In _Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ , pages 1–19.
  * Hartvigsen et al. (2022) Thomas Hartvigsen, Saadia Gabriel, Hamid Palangi, Maarten Sap, Dipankar Ray, and Ece Kamar. 2022.  ToxiGen: A large-scale machine-generated dataset for adversarial and implicit hate speech detection.  In _Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)_ , pages 3309–3326, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Howcroft et al. (2020) David M. Howcroft, Anya Belz, Miruna-Adriana Clinciu, Dimitra Gkatzia, Sadid A. Hasan, Saad Mahamood, Simon Mille, Emiel van Miltenburg, Sashank Santhanam, and Verena Rieser. 2020.  Twenty years of confusion in human evaluation: NLG needs evaluation sheets and standardised definitions.  In _Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Natural Language Generation_ , pages 169–182, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Jeronymo et al. (2023) Vitor Jeronymo, Luiz Bonifacio, Hugo Abonizio, Marzieh Fadaee, Roberto Lotufo, Jakub Zavrel, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2023.  Inpars-v2: Large language models as efficient dataset generators for information retrieval.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.01820_.
  * Ji et al. (2023) Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2023.  Survey of hallucination in natural language generation.  _ACM Computing Surveys_ , 55(12):1–38.
  * Jiang et al. (2023) Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, et al. 2023.  Mistral 7b.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825_.
  * Kalpakchi and Boye (2023) Dmytro Kalpakchi and Johan Boye. 2023.  Quasi: a synthetic question-answering dataset in Swedish using GPT-3 and zero-shot learning.  In _Proceedings of the 24th Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (NoDaLiDa)_ , pages 477–491, Tórshavn, Faroe Islands. University of Tartu Library.
  * Kumar. et al. (2023) Vivek Kumar., Simone Balloccu., Zixiu Wu., Ehud Reiter., Rim Helaoui., Diego Recupero., and Daniele Riboni. 2023.  Data augmentation for reliability and fairness in counselling quality classification.  In _Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Scarce Data in Artificial Intelligence for Healthcare - SDAIH_ , pages 23–28. INSTICC, SciTePress.
  * Le Glaz et al. (2021) Aziliz Le Glaz, Yannis Haralambous, Deok-Hee Kim-Dufor, Philippe Lenca, Romain Billot, Taylor C Ryan, Jonathan Marsh, Jordan Devylder, Michel Walter, Sofian Berrouiguet, et al. 2021.  Machine learning and natural language processing in mental health: systematic review.  _Journal of Medical Internet Research_ , 23(5):e15708.
  * Lee et al. (2022a) Mina Lee, Percy Liang, and Qian Yang. 2022a.  Coauthor: Designing a human-ai collaborative writing dataset for exploring language model capabilities.  In _Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems_ , pages 1–19.
  * Lee et al. (2022b) Young-Jun Lee, Chae-Gyun Lim, Yunsu Choi, Ji-Hui Lm, and Ho-Jin Choi. 2022b.  PERSONACHATGEN: Generating personalized dialogues using GPT-3.  In _Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Customized Chat Grounding Persona and Knowledge_ , pages 29–48, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Lewis et al. (2019) Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Ves Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2019.  Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and comprehension.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.13461_.
  * Liu et al. (2022) Alisa Liu, Swabha Swayamdipta, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2022.  WANLI: Worker and AI collaboration for natural language inference dataset creation.  In _Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022_ , pages 6826–6847, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Liu et al. (2023) Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2023.  Pre-train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing.  _ACM Computing Surveys_ , 55(9):1–35.
  * Liu et al. (2019) Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019.  Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692_.
  * Lu et al. (2022) Yao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2022.  Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming few-shot prompt order sensitivity.  In _Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)_ , pages 8086–8098, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Luccioni and Hernandez-Garcia (2023) Alexandra Sasha Luccioni and Alex Hernandez-Garcia. 2023.  Counting carbon: A survey of factors influencing the emissions of machine learning.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08476_.
  * Mekala et al. (2022) Dheeraj Mekala, Tu Vu, Timo Schick, and Jingbo Shang. 2022.  Leveraging QA datasets to improve generative data augmentation.  In _Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing_ , pages 9737–9750, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Meng et al. (2022) Yu Meng, Jiaxin Huang, Yu Zhang, and Jiawei Han. 2022.  Generating training data with language models: Towards zero-shot language understanding.  In _Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems_.
  * Michie et al. (2013) Susan Michie, Michelle Richardson, Marie Johnston, Charles Abraham, Jill Francis, Wendy Hardeman, Martin P Eccles, James Cane, and Caroline E Wood. 2013.  The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions.  _Annals of behavioral medicine_ , 46(1):81–95.
  * Moyers et al. (2010) TB Moyers, T Martin, JK Manuel, WR Miller, and D Ernst. 2010.  Revised global scales: Motivational interviewing treatment integrity 3.1. 1 (miti 3.1. 1).  _Unpublished manuscript, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM_.
  * Moyers et al. (2003) Theresa B Moyers, Tim Martin, Jennifer K Manuel, William R Miller, and D Ernst. 2003.  The motivational interviewing treatment integrity (miti) code: Version 2.0.  _Retrieved from Verfübar unter: www. casaa. unm. edu [01.03. 2005]_.
  * (38) OpenAI.  Introducing chatgpt.
  * Radford et al. (2019) Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019.  Language models are unsupervised multitask learners.  _OpenAI blog_ , 1(8):9.
  * Sahu et al. (2022) Gaurav Sahu, Pau Rodriguez, Issam Laradji, Parmida Atighehchian, David Vazquez, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. 2022.  Data augmentation for intent classification with off-the-shelf large language models.  In _Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on NLP for Conversational AI_ , pages 47–57, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Sanh et al. (2019) Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2019.  Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108_.
  * Savolainen (2010) Reijo Savolainen. 2010.  Dietary blogs as sites of informational and emotional support.  _Information Research, Vol. 15_ , 15(4).
  * Scao et al. (2022) Teven Le Scao, Angela Fan, Christopher Akiki, Ellie Pavlick, Suzana Ilić, Daniel Hesslow, Roman Castagné, Alexandra Sasha Luccioni, François Yvon, Matthias Gallé, Jonathan Tow, Alexander M. Rush, Stella Biderman, Albert Webson, Pawan Sasanka Ammanamanchi, Thomas Wang, Benoît Sagot, Niklas Muennighoff, Albert Villanova del Moral, Olatunji Ruwase, Rachel Bawden, Stas Bekman, Angelina Mcmillan-Major, Iz Beltagy, Huu Nguyen, Lucile Saulnier, Samson Tan, Pedro Ortiz Suarez, Victor Sanh, Hugo Laurençon, Yacine Jernite, Julien Launay, Margaret Mitchell, Colin Raffel, Aaron Gokaslan, Adi Simhi, Aitor Soroa, Alham Fikri Aji, Amit Alfassy, Anna Rogers, Ariel Kreisberg Nitzav, Canwen Xu, Chenghao Mou, Chris Emezue, Christopher Klamm, Colin Leong, Daniel van Strien, David Ifeoluwa Adelani, Dragomir Radev, Eduardo González Ponferrada, Efrat Levkovizh, Ethan Kim, Eyal Bar Natan, Francesco de Toni, Gérard Dupont, Germán Kruszewski, Giada Pistilli, Hady Elsahar, Hamza Benyamina, Hieu Tran, Ian Yu, Idris Abdulmumin, Isaac Johnson, Itziar Gonzalez-Dios, Javier de la Rosa, Jenny Chim, Jesse Dodge, Jian Zhu, Jonathan Chang, Jörg Frohberg, Joseph Tobing, Joydeep Bhattacharjee, Khalid Almubarak, Kimbo Chen, Kyle Lo, Leandro von Werra, Leon Weber, Long Phan, Loubna Ben Allal, Ludovic Tanguy, Manan Dey, Manuel Romero Muñoz, Maraim Masoud, María Grandury, Mario Šaško, Max Huang, Maximin Coavoux, Mayank Singh, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Minh Chien Vu, Mohammad A. Jauhar, Mustafa Ghaleb, Nishant Subramani, Nora Kassner, Nurulaqilla Khamis, Olivier Nguyen, Omar Espejel, Ona de Gibert, Paulo Villegas, Peter Henderson, Pierre Colombo, Priscilla Amuok, Quentin Lhoest, Rheza Harliman, Rishi Bommasani, Roberto Luis López, Rui Ribeiro, Salomey Osei, Sampo Pyysalo, Sebastian Nagel, Shamik Bose, Shamsuddeen Hassan Muhammad, Shanya Sharma, Shayne Longpre, Somaieh Nikpoor, Stanislav Silberberg, Suhas Pai, Sydney Zink, Tiago Timponi Torrent, Timo Schick, Tristan Thrush, Valentin Danchev, Vassilina Nikoulina, Veronika Laippala, Violette Lepercq, Vrinda Prabhu, Zaid Alyafeai, Zeerak Talat, Arun Raja, Benjamin Heinzerling, Chenglei Si, Elizabeth Salesky, Sabrina J. Mielke, Wilson Y. Lee, Abheesht Sharma, Andrea Santilli, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Debajyoti Datta, Eliza Szczechla, Gunjan Chhablani, Han Wang, Harshit Pandey, Hendrik Strobelt, Jason Alan Fries, Jos Rozen, Leo Gao, Lintang Sutawika, M Saiful Bari, Maged S. Al-Shaibani, Matteo Manica, Nihal Nayak, Ryan Teehan, Samuel Albanie, Sheng Shen, Srulik Ben-David, Stephen H. Bach, Taewoon Kim, Tali Bers, Thibault Fevry, Trishala Neeraj, Urmish Thakker, Vikas Raunak, Xiangru Tang, Zheng-Xin Yong, Zhiqing Sun, Shaked Brody, Yallow Uri, Hadar Tojarieh, Adam Roberts, Hyung Won Chung, Jaesung Tae, Jason Phang, Ofir Press, Conglong Li, Deepak Narayanan, Hatim Bourfoune, Jared Casper, Jeff Rasley, Max Ryabinin, Mayank Mishra, Minjia Zhang, Mohammad Shoeybi, Myriam Peyrounette, Nicolas Patry, Nouamane Tazi, Omar Sanseviero, Patrick von Platen, Pierre Cornette, Pierre François Lavallée, Rémi Lacroix, Samyam Rajbhandari, Sanchit Gandhi, Shaden Smith, Stéphane Requena, Suraj Patil, Tim Dettmers, Ahmed Baruwa, Amanpreet Singh, Anastasia Cheveleva, Anne-Laure Ligozat, Arjun Subramonian, Aurélie Névéol, Charles Lovering, Dan Garrette, Deepak Tunuguntla, Ehud Reiter, Ekaterina Taktasheva, Ekaterina Voloshina, Eli Bogdanov, Genta Indra Winata, Hailey Schoelkopf, Jan-Christoph Kalo, Jekaterina Novikova, Jessica Zosa Forde, Jordan Clive, Jungo Kasai, Ken Kawamura, Liam Hazan, Marine Carpuat, Miruna Clinciu, Najoung Kim, Newton Cheng, Oleg Serikov, Omer Antverg, Oskar van der Wal, Rui Zhang, Ruochen Zhang, Sebastian Gehrmann, Shani Pais, Tatiana Shavrina, Thomas Scialom, Tian Yun, Tomasz Limisiewicz, Verena Rieser, Vitaly Protasov, Vladislav Mikhailov, Yada Pruksachatkun, Yonatan Belinkov, Zachary Bamberger, Zdeněk Kasner, Alice Rueda, Amanda Pestana, Amir Feizpour, Ammar Khan, Amy Faranak, Ana Santos, Anthony Hevia, Antigona Unldreaj, Arash Aghagol, Arezoo Abdollahi, Aycha Tammour, Azadeh Hajihosseini, Bahareh Behroozi, Benjamin Ajibade, Bharat Saxena, Carlos Muñoz Ferrandis, Danish Contractor, David Lansky, Davis David, Douwe Kiela, Duong A. Nguyen, Edward Tan, Emi Baylor, Ezinwanne Ozoani, Fatima Mirza, Frankline Ononiwu, Habib Rezanejad, Hessie Jones, Indrani Bhattacharya, Irene Solaiman, Irina Sedenko, Isar Nejadgholi, Jesse Passmore, Josh Seltzer, Julio Bonis Sanz, Livia Dutra, Mairon Samagaio, Maraim Elbadri, Margot Mieskes, Marissa Gerchick, Martha Akinlolu, Michael Mckenna, Mike Qiu, Muhammed Ghauri, Mykola Burynok, Nafis Abrar, Nazneen Rajani, Nour Elkott, Nour Fahmy, Olanrewaju Samuel, Ran An, Rasmus Kromann, Ryan Hao, Samira Alizadeh, Sarmad Shubber, Silas Wang, Sourav Roy, Sylvain Viguier, Thanh Le, Tobi Oyebade, Trieu Le, Yoyo Yang, Zach Nguyen, Abhinav Ramesh Kashyap, Alfredo Palasciano, Alison Callahan, Anima Shukla, Antonio Miranda-Escalada, Ayush Singh, Benjamin Beilharz, Bo Wang, Caio Brito, Chenxi Zhou, Chirag Jain, Chuxin Xu, Clémentine Fourrier, Daniel León Periñán, Daniel Molano, Dian Yu, Enrique Manjavacas, Fabio Barth, Florian Fuhrimann, Gabriel Altay, Giyaseddin Bayrak, Gully Burns, Helena U. Vrabec, Imane Bello, Ishani Dash, Jihyun Kang, John Giorgi, Jonas Golde, Jose David Posada, Karthik Rangasai Sivaraman, Lokesh Bulchandani, Lu Liu, Luisa Shinzato, Madeleine Hahn de Bykhovetz, Maiko Takeuchi, Marc Pàmies, Maria A Castillo, Marianna Nezhurina, Mario Sänger, Matthias Samwald, Michael Cullan, Michael Weinberg, Michiel de Wolf, Mina Mihaljcic, Minna Liu, Moritz Freidank, Myungsun Kang, Natasha Seelam, Nathan Dahlberg, Nicholas Michio Broad, Nikolaus Muellner, Pascale Fung, Patrick Haller, Ramya Chandrasekhar, Renata Eisenberg, Robert Martin, Rodrigo Canalli, Rosaline Su, Ruisi Su, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Samuele Garda, Shlok S Deshmukh, Shubhanshu Mishra, Sid Kiblawi, Simon Ott, Sinee Sang-Aroonsiri, Srishti Kumar, Stefan Schweter, Sushil Bharati, Tanmay Laud, Théo Gigant, Tomoya Kainuma, Wojciech Kusa, Yanis Labrak, Yash Shailesh Bajaj, Yash Venkatraman, Yifan Xu, Yingxin Xu, Yu Xu, Zhe Tan, Zhongli Xie, Zifan Ye, Mathilde Bras, Younes Belkada, and Thomas Wolf. 2022.  BLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Model.  Working paper or preprint.
  * Schick and Schütze (2021) Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021.  Generating datasets with pretrained language models.  In _Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing_ , pages 6943–6951, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Touvron et al. (2023) Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. 2023.  Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288_.
  * Tunstall et al. (2023) Lewis Tunstall, Edward Beeching, Nathan Lambert, Nazneen Rajani, Kashif Rasul, Younes Belkada, Shengyi Huang, Leandro von Werra, Clémentine Fourrier, Nathan Habib, et al. 2023.  Zephyr: Direct distillation of lm alignment.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16944_.
  * van Agteren et al. (2021) Joep van Agteren, Matthew Iasiello, Laura Lo, Jonathan Bartholomaeus, Zoe Kopsaftis, Marissa Carey, and Michael Kyrios. 2021.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological interventions to improve mental wellbeing.  _Nature human behaviour_ , 5(5):631–652.
  * Vayansky and Kumar (2020) Ike Vayansky and Sathish AP Kumar. 2020.  A review of topic modeling methods.  _Information Systems_ , 94:101582.
  * Vrkatić et al. (2022) Aleksandra Vrkatić, Maja Grujičić, Jelena Jovičić-Bata, and Budimka Novaković. 2022.  Nutritional knowledge, confidence, attitudes towards nutritional care and nutrition counselling practice among general practitioners.  In _Healthcare_ , volume 10, page 2222. MDPI.
  * Wei et al. (2022) Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022.  Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903_.
  * Wu et al. (2022) Zixiu Wu, Simone Balloccu, Vivek Kumar, Rim Helaoui, Ehud Reiter, Diego Reforgiato Recupero, and Daniele Riboni. 2022.  Anno-mi: A dataset of expert-annotated counselling dialogues.  In _ICASSP 2022-2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)_ , pages 6177–6181. IEEE.
  * Wu et al. (2023) Zixiu Wu, Simone Balloccu, Ehud Reiter, Rim Helaoui, Diego Reforgiato Recupero, and Daniele Riboni. 2023.  Are experts needed? on human evaluation of counselling reflection generation.  In _Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)_ , pages 6906–6930, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Yoo et al. (2021) Kang Min Yoo, Dongju Park, Jaewook Kang, Sang-Woo Lee, and Woomyoung Park. 2021.  GPT3Mix: Leveraging large-scale language models for text augmentation.  In _Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021_ , pages 2225–2239, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  * Zheng et al. (2022) Chujie Zheng, Sahand Sabour, Jiaxin Wen, and Minlie Huang. 2022.  Augesc: Large-scale data augmentation for emotional support conversation with pre-trained language models.  _arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.13047_.

Table 7: Experts identity, professional background and their contribution to
dataset creation. DEF = text categories definition; CLUST = Clustering; PE =
Prompt engineering; ANN = Annotation; INT = Final Interview

p3cm p5cm p0.5cm p1.2cm p0.5cm p0.5cm p0.5cm p0.5cm Expert Professional
background DEF CLUST PE ANN INT
Dr. Alexandra Johnstone Personal website
Dr. Julia Allan Personal website
Aisling Forde Personal website
Annika Bucky Personal website
Cathrine Baungaard Personal website
Durr-e-Zahra Personal website
Edward Payne Master in human nutrition. PhD student in nutrition.
Maia Lockhart Personal web-page
Maram Mansour Registered associate nutritionist, with a specialisation in
eating disorders.
Mayara De Paula Personal website
Nabilah Chniouer Personal website
Puja Bhavsar Master’s degree in human nutrition. Freelance nutritionist
specialised in food specification, allergies and policy.
Rebecca Moragne Personal website
Sally Bowman Personal website
Sarah Hawkins Personal website

Figure 5: Struggle collection form introduction, mentioning common examples of
dietary struggles.

Figure 6: Extract from the guided writing process for crowdworkers.

##  Appendix A Ethics Statement

In this section, we briefly discuss the ethical aspects of our experiments.

##### Ethical Review

Prior to our experiment, materials and methodology underwent ethical review by
the University of Aberdeen’s Ethics Board. The proposal was flagged as
ethically compliant and accepted without major revisions.

##### Recruitment

We recruited crowdowrkers through Amazon Mechanical Turk and Prolific. No
recruitment qualification was specified, besides custom ones to prevent the
same worker from submitting the work multiple times (on Mturk) and fluency in
English language.

Experts for the first phases of our experiment (text category definition and
clustering) were recruited from the internal network of the University of
Aberdeen, particularly the Rowett Institute888https://www.abdn.ac.uk/rowett/.
Experts for prompt engineering and safety annotation were recruited through
posts on social media and university mailing lists.

##### Information and Consent

In all phases of our experiments, the involved participants (crowdworkers and
experts) received an electronic information sheet containing details on the
task, research purpose, workload and eventual pay. This also included the fact
that data would be made available for future research, in accordance with data
anonymisation requirements. Upon starting the task, all participants were
prompted with a mandatory consent form to confirm their understanding of the
terms and conditions and their willingness to take part in the annotation. All
participants were also given an email contact in case of problems. All
involved participants were automatically prevented from taking part in our
study if they did not provide consent.

##### Pay and workload

For struggles collection, task completion time was first measured from 15 test
users within the Computing Science department of the University of Aberdeen.
The average result for completing the whole experiment (reading information;
writing the 3 struggles) was 5 minutes. We gave crowdworkers an estimate of 10
minutes for the task, and a total of 60 minutes to do it. Workers were paid 2
USD for the task. As we hosted our annotation interface on an external
website, workers were instructed of the chance of completing the task even if
they ran out of time, and were invited to contact us through email in case
this happened, to receive their payment.

Experts who contributed to text categories definition and clustering did so
willingly out of interest in the project and received no remuneration.
Similarly, experts who were hired for annotation safety willingly contributed
to prompt engineering out of their interest in our project and were not paid
for this specific task. For safety annotation, completion time was estimated
from internal testing and experts were paid 13 USD per hour of work. The total
annotation workload was capped at 29 hours of work per annotator, for a total
of 377 USD per annotator.

##### Data Anonymisation

Crowdworkers were explicitly instructed not to disclose any detail that could
identify them, including cities, names, addresses and similar. Our annotation
interface clearly communicated that, in case such information was found, it
would have been removed. Upon manual checking, we report that none of the
crowdworkers disclosed sensitive data.

All experts involved in our experiment voluntarily agreed to identity
disclosure.

##  Appendix B Recruited experts

We report the identity of all the involved experts in Section 9, along with
their professional background (or personal website when available) and their
contribution to the project. We note that our pool of experts is pretty
heterogeneous, with some of them covering academic teaching positions, and
others being researchers or counsellors. We consider this variability a
positive aspect of our pool, such that different schools of thought and
approaches to nutrition counselling converged into HAI-Coaching.

##  Appendix C Additional experiment details

In this section, we provide further details on our experiments, covering the
procedure for struggles collection, prompt engineering and safety annotation.

##### Struggles collection

For crowdsourcing struggles from Prolific and Mturk, we developed a web
interface which we first tested on 15 volunteers within our department to
identify early issues. While the actual task took 2-3 minutes on average, we
found out that most of the participants were initially stuck in the writing
process, and needed help on how to start writing. Most of them reported
difficulties in writing because diet was not a topic they thought about
regularly, so suddenly coming up with 3 specific issues was challenging. To
address this, we first added some examples of common dietary struggles to put
the task into context (Figure 5). To further help the workers, we also
included a 4-step guided writing process (Figure 6):

  1. 1.

Thinking about the struggle and writing it down in a simple way.

  2. 2.

Thinking about the reason why the struggle is happening and incorporating it
into the text.

  3. 3.

Elaborate on the feelings emerging from experiencing the struggle and
incorporating it into the text.

  4. 4.

Finalizing the text.

While workers were left relatively free in terms of writing, we set some
boundaries (like struggles length and personal data disclosure). We include a
full copy of the form in the repository. The whole process of struggle
collection took about a month to complete.

Due to the increasing amount of fraudulent work on crowdsourcing platforms
(Dennis et al., 2020), we implemented a series of sanity checks that were used
to discard low-quality work and filter out bots. Workers were informed about
this when doing the task. First, we implemented a simple attention question in
the middle of the form, asking the worker to perform a quick arithmetic
operation. Besides this, our system flagged the worker as fraudulent if all of
the following 3 conditions were matched:

  1. 1.

The time spent on the form was less than 5 minutes.

  2. 2.

Any of written struggles contained more than 2 typos (grammatical or typing
errors, checked through the pyspellchecker Python library) in a single
sentence.

  3. 3.

Failure to give the right answer to the attention question.

In case of flagging, we contacted the worker (via the built-in chat in
Prolific, or a 0.01 USD bonus on Mturk), providing the reasons why it
happened, and giving them 24 hours to decide whether they wanted to withdraw
their work (on Prolific, where this is possible). We note that, generally,
Prolific workers provided much higher-quality data: after sanity checks only
20% of the returned work from MTurk was accepted, as opposed to 90% from
Prolific.

Figure 7: Aggregated crowdworkers demographics

##### Prompt Engineering

Annotators worked on a shared online spreadsheet, showing selected struggles
and a candidate for each kind of supportive text, which they had to mark as
safe or not. Annotations from all experts were visible on the spreadsheet.
Discussions between experts happened on a private Slack channel, with a thread
for each struggle the annotators worked on. During this phase, we actively
monitored the spreadsheet and tagged annotators in case of disagreement,
encouraging discussion. In some cases, discussion led to some experts changing
their annotations, but this was never enforced. The whole process of prompt-
engineering took about 3 months, after which the obtained prompts were kept as
final.

##### Safety annotation

Each annotator received their workload in the form of a fillable Microsoft
Word document. Each document contained one struggle and 10 candidates for each
kind of supportive text, all of which needed to be marked as safe or unsafe.
Besides annotating safety, experts could flag struggles as off-topic and write
up their own candidates for supportive text, up to three variants per text
category. The annotators also received additional documents covering the
agreed annotation guidelines (e.g. the concept of safety), a recap of text
categories definition and other FAQs. Experts were explicitly instructed not
to communicate during the annotation task. The average turnaround time for
completing the annotation was 4 weeks. All documents are provided in the
repository.

Figure 8: 2D map of the automatically obtained clusters (HDBSCAN + UMAP).
Sentence embeddings reduced through PCA. Clusters are enumerated for
visualisation purposes: all clusters labels and further details can be seen in
Table 8.

Experts’ work was manually checked and generally required no sanity-checking
because of the experts’ professionalism.

##  Appendix D Crowdworkers demographics

We report aggregated demographics for crowdworkers in Figure 7. Results show
that most workers were between 18 and 34 years old; came from South Africa,
Poland and Portugal; and had higher education with either a Bachelor’s or
Master’s Degree. About half were white and employed; their gender was equally
split among males and females; religion was almost equally split between
Christians and atheists. We acknowledge that some of our parameters present
significant imbalances, such as gender (where members from the LGBTQIA+
community are almost absent), country and religion. However, we do note that
balancing such aspects is an implicitly challenging task and commit to
enriching and diversifying our population in future studies.

While we do not publicly release demographics for data protection, we might
share, at our discretion, such data with interested researchers for non-
commercial purposes only.

Figure 9: Number of elements (struggles) per cluster (HDBSCAN+UMAP). Clusters
are enumerated for visualisation purposes.

##  Appendix E Clustering details

This appendix contains additional details regarding the clustering process,
both the automatic and expert-driven one.

Table 8: Full set of clusters ($n=60$) obtained through HDBSCAN+UMAP combination, along with their size. Cluster | Count | Perc. (%)
---|---|---
feel_food_junk | 717 | 30.58
feel_time_gym_day | 427 | 18.21
feel_sweet_sugar | 264 | 11.26
feel_food_time_cooking | 129 | 5.50
feel_food_friend | 129 | 5.50
eat_food_stress | 73 | 3.11
struggle_food_junk | 69 | 2.94
find_calorie_time | 41 | 1.75
feel_alcohol_friend | 29 | 1.24
struggle_diet_motivation | 27 | 1.15
tend_snack_time | 26 | 1.11
struggle_food_restaurant | 26 | 1.11
eat_food_junk | 23 | 0.98
tried_weight_food | 18 | 0.77
struggle_vegetable_diet_food | 18 | 0.77
love_food_junk | 17 | 0.72
struggle_food_period_junk | 17 | 0.72
tend_craving_food_junk | 15 | 0.64
eat_food_boredom_time | 15 | 0.64
find_diet_time | 14 | 0.60
eat_lot_food_people | 13 | 0.55
eat_diet_time | 12 | 0.51
feel_portion_food | 11 | 0.47
eat_food_junk_time | 11 | 0.47
eat_snack_night_bed | 10 | 0.43
love_food_fry | 10 | 0.43
feeling_weight_month | 9 | 0.38
struggle_grocery_store_food | 8 | 0.34
causes_meal_hour_day | 8 | 0.34
feels_food_junk | 8 | 0.34
try_food_struggle_snack | 7 | 0.30
makes_breakfast_morning_l | 7 | 0.30
struggle_carb_pasta | 7 | 0.30
struggle_food_boyfriend | 6 | 0.26
eating_food_struggle_junk | 6 | 0.26
sleep_meal_day | 6 | 0.26
finding_meal_eating_challenge | 6 | 0.26
need_food_diet | 6 | 0.26
eat_food_work_time | 6 | 0.26
eat_food_junk_friend | 6 | 0.26
lack_result_time_diet | 6 | 0.26
feels_meat_people | 6 | 0.26
struggle_vegetable_eater_healty | 5 | 0.21
feel_diet_day | 5 | 0.21
find_food_kind | 5 | 0.21
felt_time_protein_food | 5 | 0.21
struggle_healthy_food_diet | 5 | 0.21
eat_food_people | 4 | 0.17
feel_weight_diet_cooking | 4 | 0.17
struggle_disorder_work_bulimia | 4 | 0.17
end_food_junk | 4 | 0.17
chips_chip_home | 4 | 0.17
diet_run_day_binge | 4 | 0.17
find_craving_night_childhood | 4 | 0.17
makes_food_dieting_calorie | 4 | 0.17
control_weight_calorie_food | 4 | 0.17
tastes_food_taste | 3 | 0.13
trying_bc_sugar_fat | 3 | 0.13
enjoy_lot_food_need | 3 | 0.13
feel_unhealthy_parent_dieting | 3 | 0.13
said_food_junk_diet | 3 | 0.13

##### Automatic clusters pollution

We show the full set of automatic clusters, obtained through HDBSCAN + UMAP,
in Table 8, along with their size and labels, automatically created by
extracting the most common n-grams inside them.

Since the algorithm we used requires setting several hyperparameters,
impacting both the number and size of clusters, we conducted some internal
testing, after which we obtained a total of 60 clusters. By applying PCA and
plotting the sentence embeddings for the clusters (Figure 8), some patterns
seem to emerge with some major groups of struggles isolated from the rest.
Some clusters’ labels seemingly support this: labels like feel_food_junk,
feel_time_gym_day or feel_food_time_cooking partially align with what was
initially observed from ngrams (Figure 2 in the main body of this paper).
However, as we show in Figure 9, a few clusters contains most of the
struggles, while the remaining ones are almost empty. For example, the biggest
cluster (feel_food_junk) alone contains 31% of the struggles, while 38 of the
remaining ones, together, contain 9% of them. The inadequacy of this
clustering became even clearer after manual inspection. For example, out of
the 60 clusters, 24 mentioned dietary problems related to the social sphere
(e.g. diet made harder by social pressure); 22 mentioned pure cravings
(without any other factor affecting them); 19 mentioned problems regarding
motivation or effort. This cannot be justified by assuming that lots of
clusters covered the same class of topics: the cluster feel_food_junk (the
biggest one), supposedly focused on eating unhealthy food, covered a wide
range of topics including undereating, problems with hydration, lack of
adherence with diet apps and mental health matters like body dysmorphia; the
cluster feel_food_time_cooking, apparently related to the time required to
cook a meal, also covered bad cooking habits (e.g. using lots of oil),
undereating because of tiredness and taste preferences.

We hypothesize that the inadequacy of automatic clustering is mainly for two
reasons:

  1. 1.

Our guided writing process resulted in many crowdworkers adopting similar
writing styles regardless of the topic, making the text ambiguous.

  2. 2.

The lack of publicly available corpora about dietary struggles made it
challenging for available sentence similarity models to perform adequately.

##### Expert-guided clusters

The topic modelling process with the experts, which we described in Section
5.1.1, initially led to 19 clusters, a clear improvement compared to the 60
ones obtained automatically. However, a number of clusters still featured a
very low amount of struggles. While this can be positive for topic separation,
such small clusters may limit practical applications. Therefore, we further
merged the 19 clusters into 12 under the experts’ assistance. The following
clusters were involved:

  * •

JUDG_SHAME_STIGMA (63 struggles), a cluster dealing with diet-related self-
shame, other people’s judgement and related topics. Merged with MENTAL_HEALTH.

  * •

RESTRAIN_REBOUND (73 struggles), a cluster related to unhealthy self-
punishment following "cheating" diet, the "what the hell" effect (Cochran and
Tesser, 2014) and related topics. Merged with PORTION_CONTROL.

  * •

CALORIE_COUNTING (38 struggles), covering struggles specifically related to
calorie counting. Merged with DIET_PLAN_ISSUES.

  * •

TASTE_PREFS (63 struggles), covering taste preferences preventing healthy food
choices and not enjoying healthy food. Merged with CRAVING_HABITS.

  * •

Various clusters with not usable text (OFF_TOPIC, NOT_A_STRUGGLE,
SHORT_NO_DETAILS, MISC, for a total of 98 struggles). Merged into a single
NOT_APPLICABLE cluster.

For the full 12 final clusters, we provide the top-10 4-grams in Figure 10.
Moreover, the dataset in the repository contains, for each struggle, the
automatic cluster label (with sentence embeddings) and the cluster from topic
modelling before and after merging.

Figure 10: Top-10 4-grams for all the macro-clusters obtained in collaboration
with experts.

##  Appendix F Prompting details

In this section, we provide further details on our prompting strategy.

##### ChatGPT prompts

We provide the prompts we used on ChatGPT in Figures 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
and 17 for all supportive text categories (reflection, comfort, reframing,
suggestion). We provide our prompts before and at the end of prompt
engineering, while all intermediate iterations can be found in the repository.
For comforting statements, there is only one prompt, as this text category was
agreed upon and introduced with the experts towards the end of prompt
engineering.

##### Deprecated prompts

We do not provide prompts that did not pass internal tasting, namely those
using chain-of-thought or impersonation as these were deleted because of
inefficacy. However, we report their structure so that they can be reproduced
and eventually tested:

  1. 1.

The chain-of-thought prompt consisted of the same prompts that can be found
here and on the repository, modified by appending "think step-by-step",
"provide the logic for your answer" or similar formulations.

  2. 2.

The impersonation followed the same logic, but with the pre-pending of "You
are an expert dietitian", "Imagine you are a helpful dietitian" and similar
formulations.

Read the following message from a person struggling with reaching a healthy
lifestyle:

"$STRUGGLE"

Write 10 reflective listening statements, starting with "do you mean that".
Each statement must convey understanding of what the person said. Present them
in the following format: sentence 1 ### sentence 2 ### ...

Write just this, don’t add any other text.

Figure 11: Initial reflection prompt.

Read the following statement from a person struggling with reaching a healthy
lifestyle:

"$STRUGGLE"

Complete the following 10 utterances by trying to understand what the person
means. Each utterance must be different. Make each utterance start as shown
below.

1) $RANDOM_REFLECTION_SLOT
$...$
10) $RANDOM_REFLECTION_SLOT

Figure 12: Final reflection prompt.

Read the following message from a person struggling with reaching a healthy
lifestyle:

"$STRUGGLE"

Complete the following 10 utterances by explaining this person how it is
normal to experience it and how the they should not feel bad about it. Each
utterance must be different. Make each utterance start as shown below.

1) $RANDOM_COMFORT_SLOT
$...$
10) $RANDOM_COMFORT_SLOT

Figure 13: Comfort prompt.

Read the following message from a person struggling with reaching a healthy
lifestyle:

"$STRUGGLE"

Write 10 positive reframing statements, starting with "try thinking that".
Each statement must show an upside to the situation, a lesson to be learned,
or a positive side of what the person said. Try changing the
upside/lesson/positive side with each statement. Present them in the following
format: sentence 1 ### sentence 2 ### ...

Write just this, don’t add any other text.

Figure 14: Initial reframing prompt.

Read the following statement from a person struggling with reaching a healthy
lifestyle:

"$STRUGGLE"

Complete the following 10 utterances by telling this person how to see it in a
more positive way. Each utterance must be different. Make each utterance start
as shown below.

1) $RANDOM_REFRAMING_SLOT
$...$
10) $RANDOM_REFRAMING_SLOT

Figure 15: Final reframing prompt.

Read the following message from a person struggling with reaching a healthy
lifestyle:

"$STRUGGLE"

Write 10 suggestions, starting with "you could". Each statement must suggest
something the person could start doing to counter the struggle. Try changing
the suggestion with each statement. Present them in the following format:
sentence 1 ### sentence 2 ### ...

Write just this, don’t add any other text.

Figure 16: Initial suggestion prompt.

Read the following statement from a person struggling with reaching a healthy
lifestyle:

"$STRUGGLE"

Complete the following 10 utterances by suggesting this person how they can
face the struggle. Each utterance must be different. Make each utterance start
as shown below.

1) $RANDOM_SUGGESTION_SLOT
$...$
10) $RANDOM_SUGGESTION_SLOT

Figure 17: Final suggestion prompt.

Figure 18: Results from annotators questionnaire.

##  Appendix G Annotators interview details

In this section we briefly cover the interview that we conducted with the
experts. The following are the questions that we asked to all the
experts/annotators taking part to the interview:

  1. 1.

In short, could you describe your experience in this project?

  2. 2.

Do you think this technology holds the potential to cause harm if used in an
unsupervised way (e.g. without annotation)? Why? If yes, how do you think this
could be mitigated?

  3. 3.

What aspects of the generated text impressed/worried you the most? Why?

  4. 4.

Based on your experience, which of the generated text types (reflection,
comfort, reframing, suggestion) was the most/least useful? Why?

  5. 5.

Is there a space for this technology within your current job? if yes, where
and how?

Out of the 13 annotators, 9 took the interviews, while the others did not due
to work commitments. The interviews were conducted virtually and lasted 30
minutes on average.

##  Appendix H Likert Questionnaire

Besides the safety annotation and qualitative interview discussed in the main
body of the paper, we also report results from a further evaluation, where we
asked the experts to rate the text from their batch over a set of metrics. In
detail, we ask each annotator to score the candidates they worked with
(globally) on

  * •

Appropriateness: fitting the context of the considered struggle.

  * •

Clarity: being easy to understand.

  * •

Coherence: having a well-structured and logical meaning, with regard to the
considered struggle.

  * •

Fluency: having a ‘good flow’ and not being, for example, a sequence of
unconnected parts.

  * •

Human-likeness: looking like it could have been written by a human.

  * •

Usefulness: matching the goal stated in the text category definition.

We model metrics definitions after existing guidelines in NLG evaluation
(Howcroft et al., 2020). Results from the questionnaire (Figure 18) show
predominantly positive values. It is notable to see that no metric ever scored
lower than "Sometimes", meaning no negative scores whatsoever. This also
follows the narrative of Section 6.2, with experts mostly reporting, at
surface level, impressive fluency and text quality.

Table 9: Performance for struggle classifications. For _LLMs_ , models at best epoch (validation loss) are considered. highest$\uparrow$ and lowest$\downarrow$ values are highlighted. Model | Acc. | Bal. Acc. | Precision | Recall | F1 | F1-micro | F1-macro
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
LR | 0.50 | 0.33 | 0.49 | 0.50 | 0.47 | 0.50 | 0.33
RF | 0.56 | 0.36 | 0.6 | 0.56 | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.37
SVM | 0.49$\downarrow$ | 0.31$\downarrow$ | 0.48$\downarrow$ | 0.49$\downarrow$ | 0.44$\downarrow$ | 0.49$\downarrow$ | 0.29$\downarrow$
BART | 0.64 | 0.56 | 0.60 | 0.64 | 0.62 | 0.64 | 0.55
BERT | 0.65$\uparrow$ | 0.53 | 0.63 | 0.65$\uparrow$ | 0.63$\uparrow$ | 0.65$\uparrow$ | 0.54
DistilBERT | 0.63 | 0.44 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.6 | 0.63 | 0.46
RoBERTa | 0.63 | 0.59$\uparrow$ | 0.65$\uparrow$ | 0.63 | 0.63$\uparrow$ | 0.63 | 0.57$\uparrow$

From the results we also calculate which text categories obtained the highest
scores per metrics:

  * •

Appropriateness: Comfort

  * •

Clarity: Suggestions

  * •

Coherence: Suggestions, Comfort

  * •

Fluency: Suggestions

  * •

Human-likeness: Suggestions, Reframing

  * •

Usefulness: Reframing

##  Appendix I NLP applications of HAI-Coaching

This paper mainly covered the creation and quality evaluation of HAI-Coaching.
In this final section, we present possible NLP use cases for the dataset,
focusing on using HAI-Coaching to support nutrition experts. This section
contains only initial testing of HAI-Coaching for NLP, and we commit to
improving the following approaches in future. As such, performances should be
interpreted as preliminary.

Table 10: Overview of the fine-tuned language models for struggle classification. Model | version | Params (no.)
---|---|---
BERT (Devlin et al., 2018) | base | 110M
DistilBERT (Sanh et al., 2019) | base | 66M
BART (Lewis et al., 2019) | base | 140M
RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019) | base | 123M

##### Struggle classification

We first model the struggle classification task, where the model receives a
struggle as input and classifies it as one of 12 topics obtained in Section
5.1.1. This task can be useful as a pre-screening tool that experts can use
when virtually engaging with clients. The classification can direct the client
to the most appropriate expert, and provide initial insights about the
problem. We test a set of baselines (Logistic Regression - LR, Random Forest -
RF and Support Vector Machine - SVM), and fine-tune a group of _LLMs_ for text
classification. We adopted BERT (Devlin et al., 2018), DistilBERT (Sanh et
al., 2019), BART (Lewis et al., 2019) and RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019), in the
variants reported in Table 10.

For _LLMs_ , we adopt a 90/5/5 train, test, and validation split on HAI-
Coaching. We pair each struggle $s$ with its cluster label $l$, producing an
example pair $t=(s,l)$. To address the topic imbalance in HAI-Coaching, we
randomly extract the same portion of candidates from each cluster when
partitioning. For example, our training set contained roughly 90% of each
cluster. We train each _LLMs_ for 5 epochs with the following parameters and
choose the best checkpoint based on validation loss:

  * •

learning rate = 2e-5

  * •

per_device_train_batch_size = 16

  * •

per_device_eval_batch_size = 16

  * •

weight_decay = 0.01

We evaluate classification accuracy (normal and balanced), precision, recall
and F1-score, F1-micro and F1-macro on the test-set.

Results in Table 9 show _LLMs_ outperforming the baselines across all metrics.
BERT and RoBERTa show similar values for most metrics, but Balanced Accuracy
draws RoBERTa as the winner, meaning it should be preferred for minority
topics. Taking RoBERTa into consideration and analysing its classification
confusion matrix (Figure 19), we can draw further insights on performance.
Unsurprisingly, minority topics like DIET_PLAN_ISSUES, MENTAL_HEALTH or
KNOWLEDGE show the worst results, with little to no example being correctly
classified. Struggles’ ambiguity also seems to play a role: we find candidates
from ENERGY_EFFORT_CONVENIENCE often being misclassified as MOTIVATION.
Similarly, some examples are misclassified as SITUATIONAL, with the model
struggling to distinguish between unhealthy choices that depend on or not from
the client’s will.

Figure 19: Struggle classification: confusion matrix for the RoBERTa-based model. Table 11: Overview of the fine-tuned language models for supportive text generation. Model | version | Params (no.)
---|---|---
DistilGPT-2 | only version available | 82M
GPT-2 (Radford et al., 2019) | base; medium; large; xl | 124M; 355M; 774M; 1.5B;
BART (Lewis et al., 2019) | base | 140M
BLOOM-560M (Scao et al., 2022) | 560M | 560M

##### Safety classification

Next, we try modelling the safety classification task, where a model acts as
an annotator and classifies supportive text candidates as safe or unsafe. This
task can be used for training purposes in a learning environment for students,
or to assist experts during their work. However, we are unable to report any
result for this task, as we find that none of the models we tried (same as
those tested for struggles classification) can correctly learn from the data.
We find severe overfitting and inconsistent training/validation loss between
epochs, leaving us with a model that did not improve at all across training.
We hypothesize that this is due to the very subtle differences between safe
and unsafe outputs. In fact, without experts’ input, many candidates that were
marked as unsafe would have appeared acceptable to us, confirming the amount
of experience and knowledge that is necessary for such task. We leave further
developments on this task as future work. Another thing to consider is the
presence of an unknown amount of "safe but useless" candidates (Section 6.2)
which may further complicate training.

Figure 20: _LLMs_ perplexity per-epoch during fine-tuning.

##### Supportive text generation

Finally, we test supportive text generation, where a model receives a struggle
and generates candidates for each text category. We test on open-source models
Table 11 as this lets us inspect if smaller models can perform comparably,
potentially removing the need for bigger _LLMs_ and reducing
energy/environmental costs that come with them (Dodge et al., 2022; Luccioni
and Hernandez-Garcia, 2023) and more generally benefit open language
modelling. Language generation is also one of the most interesting real-world
applications of HAI-Coaching, potentially enabling language models to become
smart counsellors assisting nutritionists and reducing pressure on them.

We split HAI-Coaching into training, validation and test sets in the same way
we detailed for struggle classification, with the only difference in the data
structure. For all models but BART, struggles are concatenated with their
respective safe supportive candidates, plus a code identifying the category
(e.g. #REFL# for reflections, #COMF# for comfort etc.). We then feed the data
into the model in a Causal Language Modelling fashion. For BART, because of
its autoencoder nature, struggles are paired individually with each one of
their safe candidates, where the struggle is treated as the input sequence,
and the single safe candidate is the output sequence. We train all models for
5 epochs using the following setup:

  * •

learning rate = 2e-5

  * •

per_device_train_batch_size = 4

  * •

per_device_eval_batch_size = 4

  * •

gradient_accumulation_steps = 4

  * •

weight_decay = 0.01

  * •

optim = adafactor

Table 12: Perplexity on test set for each model, taken at best epoch based on validation set perplexity. Lowest$\downarrow$ and highest$\uparrow$ values are highlighted for each metric. Model | PPL at best epoch (test set)
---|---
DistilGPT-2 | 9.89
BART | 2.59$\uparrow$
GPT-2-base | 8.40
GPT-2-medium | 7.46
GPT-2-large | 7.62
GPT-2-XL | 7.20
BLOOM-560M | 10.13$\downarrow$

Because of time and resource constraints, we only run a preliminary evaluation
using perplexity. We show the perplexity trend for each model during fine-
tuning in Figure 20 and perplexity on test-set for each model (taken at best
epoch based on validation) in Table 12. Interestingly, the three smallest
models (DistilGPT-2, GPT-2-base and BART) show decreasing perplexity across
the whole training, with BART showing the lowest value across the board by a
big margin. As models get bigger (GPT-2-medium to large) perplexity barely
changes after epoch 2. Only the two biggest models (GPT-2-XL and BLOOM-560M)
keep lowering the value until the end of the fine-tuning. This may be due to
the text regularity of the HAI-Coaching, as all candidates from specific
categories are similar due to the starting slots we used. Medium-sized and
bigger models might learn the redundant part of the text quickly (in the first
2 epochs) but fail at capturing more subtle text dependencies. Conversely, it
may take more epochs to do the same for small-sized models, resulting in a
steadily decreasing perplexity. However, this cannot be safely assumed, as
perplexity does not completely capture models’ generative capabilities.

Table 13: Examples of generated supportive text from each model (taken at best
epoch based on perplexity), given a struggle from the test set.

Struggle (from test set)
---
"When I get sick, or feel like getting sick, I don’t go to the gym, and it
makes me feel lazy. Often also makes it hard to keep kcal on track thanks to
me not excercising for that period."

Reflections
---
Gold standard (HAI-Coaching): So, are you saying that when you’re sick or feel
like you’re getting sick, it’s difficult for you to stick to your fitness
goals and calorie intake?
DistilGPT-2: Do you mean that you have trouble sticking to a healthy diet
because of your busy schedule?
BART: So, do you mean that your lack of physical activity makes it hard for
you to maintain a healthy lifestyle due to not exercising for a period of
time?
GPT-2-base: So, do you mean that you don’t enjoy the gym as much as you used
to?
GPT-2-medium: Are you saying that the lack of gym activity is a big deal for
you, as it allows for a lack of energy and makes it harder to maintain a
healthy lifestyle?
GPT-2-large: Do you mean that you find it difficult to stick to a healthy
lifestyle when you’re feeling sick or low on energy?
GPT-2-XL: So, are you saying that you find it difficult to follow a healthy
lifestyle when you are feeling unwell?
BLOOM-560M: So, do you mean that it is difficult to stay motivated and
physically active when you feel sick or in a difficult situation?

Suggestions
---
Gold standard (HAI-Coaching): You could try finding alternative ways to stay
active, like going for a walk or doing some light stretching, when you’re not
feeling well. This will help you feel better both physically and mentally.
DistilGPT-2: Starting from tomorrow you could make a plan for how you handle
the negative emotions associated with exercising.
BART: Maybe you could try finding a workout buddy or joining a fitness class
to hold yourself accountable and make exercise more enjoyable.
GPT-2-base: It could be helpful to remind yourself that it’s normal to have
ups and downs in your fitness journey, and that it’s important to be kind to
yourself and not to be too hard on yourself.
GPT-2-medium: You could try keeping a food diary to track your progress and
identify any patterns or patterns that may be contributing to your fatigue.
GPT-2-large: It could be helpful to remind yourself of the benefits of a
healthy lifestyle, such as improved energy levels and improved mood.
GPT-2-XL: Starting from tomorrow you could make an effort to eat a healthy
meal or snack before going to the gym.
BLOOM-560M: It could be helpful to remind yourself that you are a human being,
and that you have the power to make healthy choices that will benefit you
long-term.

This can be further inspected by looking at the minimal example in Table 13,
showing some generated reflections and suggestions. We compare them with safe
candidates from HAI-Coaching. For example, BART, the best model according to
perplexity, produces both a valid reflection and suggestion. DistilGPT-2, the
second worst model based on perplexity, hallucinates by mentioning a non-
existent busy schedule in reflection but succeeds in generating valid
suggestions. We commit to a more extensive evaluation in future.