Script-Based Dialog Policy Planning for LLM-Powered Conversational Agents: A Basic Architecture for an "AI Therapist"

Christoph Benzm\"uller; Kevin Hilbert; Robert Wasenm\"uller

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 23 references

Script-Based Dialog Policy Planning for LLM-Powered Conversational Agents: A Basic Architecture for an "AI Therapist"

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Script-Based Dialog Policy Planning is a feasible architecture for an AI Therapist: an expert-written script injected into prompts moves the LLM through a finite set of therapeutic states while retaining fluency.

desk verdict A clear, honest feasibility architecture for script-constrained LLM therapy agents; the effectiveness numbers rest on an unvalidated LLM judge. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15242 v1 pith:4KMCHZSD submitted 2024-12-13 cs.CL cs.AI

Robert Wasenmüller , Kevin Hilbert , Christoph Benzmüller This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.AI

keywords script-baseddialogpolicyplanningAItherapistLLMconversationalagentspromptingfinite-statescriptmentalhealthchatbotinspectability

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces a hybrid design for therapy chatbots: a deterministic, expert-written script defines a finite set of conversation states and the rules for moving between them, and the script is injected into the LLM's prompt so that the model acts as the policy executor. On each turn the agent assesses whether the current section is complete, optionally selects the next section, and generates a response; this makes the decision path inspectable, a requirement the paper argues is essential for risk management and clinical evaluation. Two variants are implemented, one using a single LLM for all steps and one splitting the steps across Assessor, Dispatcher, and Dialog LLMs, and both are tested on 100 conversations with LLM-simulated patients. The paper concludes from these tests that the architecture is generally feasible, and reports that the single-LLM variant is more efficient and more coherent at section switches while the multi-LLM variant conforms to the script's transition rules more strictly.

What carries the argument

The Script, a natural-language text defining a finite set of states ('sections'), each with a series of tasks and explicit transition rules such as '[→ 4]' (proceed to Section 4). The script is inspired by rule-based finite-state dialog management and by psychotherapeutic treatment manuals, and it is provided to the LLM via prompting rather than as a separate program. The per-turn mechanism, Script-Based Dialog Policy Planning, consists of four steps: assess whether the current section is completed; optionally reason and plan; optionally decide on the next section; generate the response. The script is what makes the agent's state explicit and its transitions inspectable, and the two implementation variants differ only in whether these steps are performed by one LLM or split across three.

What would settle it

Have a small group of licensed psychotherapists rate a sample of the 100 generated dialogs on the same three effectiveness criteria and measure agreement with the Validator LLM; if the agreement is near chance, the reported effectiveness comparisons between the two variants are unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a script can act as a 'deterministic component' that constrains an otherwise fluent LLM to follow a therapeutic plan, producing explicit, inspectable state transitions. In the experiments, both variants moved reliably through the script's eight sections (introduction, engagement, exploration, selection, three exercises, ending) in natural-sounding dialogues, and the quantitative comparison matched the paper's stated hypothesis: the single-LLM variant was faster and cheaper per turn by about 20% in duration and 23% in input tokens, while the multi-LLM variant achieved higher script-conform dispatchings (94.2% vs 86.8%) but lower coherent section switches (87.6% vs 96.9%). The paper interprets the low correct-section-completion scores (45.5% and 35.7%) not as clear failures of instruction-following but as cases where the model prioritized fluency over literal completion, and it identifies the tradeoff between following the patient and following the script as a question for future work.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Validator LLM's judgments about correct section completions and coherent section switches are trustworthy, and those judgments were never checked against human raters or real therapy transcripts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

An expert-written script can be authored and iterated in plain language by domain experts with no programming background, giving therapists direct control over the agent's behavior.
Prompt-based script injection yields an inspectable trace of state transitions, which the paper argues is necessary for risk management and clinical evaluation of an AI Therapist.
The single-LLM variant is more efficient and produces more coherent section switches, while the multi-LLM variant is more script-adherent; the choice between them depends on whether fluency or rule-following is prioritized.
Because instructions are given at the section level, the agent can take multiple turns to complete a section and can temporarily deviate to follow user utterances, which the paper argues preserves natural conversation.
The low correct-section-completion scores show that literal adherence to the script is imperfect, and the tradeoff between following the patient and following the script is left as an open question for future work.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the validator's judgments survive a human-rating check, the same architecture could formalize any manualized psychotherapy, since a script is essentially a machine-readable treatment manual.
The coherence drop in the multi-LLM variant suggests that injecting a new section at the moment of a switch disrupts continuity; a testable extension would be to have the Dispatcher phrase the new section as a continuation of the previous one.
A natural next experiment is a Wizard-of-Oz study with human users to test whether the script's states remain alignable to real patient behavior, especially unexpected utterances.
The pattern of choosing Section 8 (ending) when the simulated patient rejected all offered exercises suggests the script needs explicit rules for patient refusal; the paper does not propose such rules.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This is a feasibility proposal, not an efficacy study, and if you read it that way it mostly works. The new bit is combining a natural-language script with section-level instructions and a completion assessment step into a finite-state dialog policy, while letting the LLM keep conversational freedom inside each section. They compare a single-LLM variant (ProCoT-like) with a multi-actor variant (Ask-an-Expert-like). The architecture is described carefully, the requirements section is thoughtful, and they ship the code, prompts, and all 100 synthetic dialogs on GitHub. Credit where due: this is reproducible, honest engineering.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note points. Table 1's effectiveness numbers come from a gpt-4o validator labeling section completions and coherence, with no human gold standard, no inter-rater check, no calibration. The correct-completion rates are low (45.5% and 35.7%), and the authors reinterpret them as the dialog LLM following instructions slightly less accurately for the sake of fluency. That reinterpretation may be right—reading the examples, it looks plausible—but it is unsupported without a human-labeled sample of the same dialogs. So the deterministic-constraint claim is not yet evidenced. It is also not disproven; the transcripts suggest the architecture does keep conversations on-script in a loose sense.

Other, smaller issues: no baseline (e.g., plain ProCoT without the script), no error bars or significance tests, and patients are LLM-simulated. The authors admit all of this in Section 5, which is good, but it means the comparative claims are preliminary.

Who is this for? Anyone building practical LLM therapy agents or hybrid dialog management systems. The paper is useful for its architecture and for naming the evaluation problem, not for its numbers. It deserves a serious referee, but the revision path needs human validation of the validator, at least one baseline, and statistical reporting. If I were the editor I would send it out with a major-revision expectation rather than desk-reject it.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Script-Based Dialog Policy Planning, a hybrid architecture for LLM-powered conversational agents in behavioral health. The core idea is to inject an expert-written, state-structured script into the LLM prompt so that the agent moves through a finite set of therapeutic states, with an explicit assessment of section completion and subsequent state transition. Two implementation variants are compared: a single-LLM variant (A) using an adapted ProCoT scheme, and a multi-LLM variant (B) using separate Assessor, Dispatcher, and Dialog LLM actors. The authors generate 100 synthetic conversations with LLM-simulated patients and evaluate efficiency (per-turn duration, token usage) and effectiveness (validator-assessed correct section completions, coherent section switches, and script-conform dispatchings). Results indicate that variant A is more efficient and variant B is more script-adherent, while overall completion rates are low. The paper concludes that the architecture is generally feasible and provides a foundation for future AI Therapist development.

Significance. If the feasibility claim is upheld, the architecture addresses a real gap in LLM-based conversational agents for clinical contexts: integrating expert-defined rules, evidence-based practice adherence, and inspectable state transitions while retaining conversational fluency. The paper provides a concrete, reproducible implementation with open-source code and transparent reporting of metrics. The two-variant comparison offers practical guidance on the efficiency/effectiveness trade-off between single-actor and multi-actor designs. However, the significance is tempered by the unvalidated LLM-based evaluation: all effectiveness numbers depend on a single gpt-4o validator with no human ground truth, and the central 'deterministic constraint' claim is not yet quantitatively supported. As a technical demonstration, the work is valuable; as an evidence base for an 'AI Therapist,' it is preliminary and requires substantial validation.

major comments (4)

[§3.4, §3.5, Table 1] All effectiveness metrics—'Percentage of Correct Section Completions,' 'Percentage of Coherent Section Switches,' and the validator's reasons—are produced by a single gpt-4o Validator LLM with no human-labeled gold standard, no inter-annotator agreement check, and no calibration against real therapy transcripts. The low completion rates (45.5% for A, 35.7% for B) are reinterpreted in Section 4 as artifacts of a strict validator that penalizes fluency-preserving deviations. This reinterpretation is load-bearing: if the validator is merely strict, the architecture may constrain well; if the validator is accurate, the script fails to constrain on most transitions. Without human annotation of a sample of the same dialogs (e.g., 20% of sections, with Cohen's kappa between validator and human raters), the comparative effectiveness claims and the 'deterministic constraint' claim are not supported.
[§3.6, §4, Table 1] The comparison between variants A and B, and the efficiency/effectiveness conclusions, rest on point estimates without any statistical significance tests, confidence intervals, or error bars. With only 50 dialogs per variant and the observed differences (e.g., 45.5% vs. 35.7% correct completions; 2,800 ms vs. 3,520 ms average duration), the authors cannot rule out variance as the source of the differences. Additionally, there is no baseline condition, such as an unscripted proactive agent or a directly enforced finite-state machine, to demonstrate that the script actually constrains behavior beyond what an unconstrained LLM would do. The paper should either add a baseline comparison or substantially weaken the claim that the script is the cause of the observed behavior.
[Abstract, §2.3] The term 'deterministic component' is used in the abstract and Section 2.3 to describe the script, but the implementation does not enforce deterministic behavior: the LLM's adherence to the script is probabilistic and depends on prompt interpretation, as evidenced by the 13.2% (variant A) and 5.8% (variant B) non-script-conform dispatchings in Table 1. Temperature=0 does not guarantee determinism. The claim that the script 'constrains the LLM's behavior in desirable ways' should be reframed as a probabilistic, prompt-dependent constraint, or the architecture should include a separate enforcement mechanism (e.g., a rule-based checker that rejects non-conforming transitions). As written, the central claim overstates the determinism of the proposed system.
[§3.3, §4] The use of LLM-simulated patients, without any human users, limits the external validity of the feasibility claim. The paper acknowledges this limitation in the Conclusion, but the feasibility conclusion in Section 4 ('we conclude that our proposed architecture is generally feasible') is based solely on synthetic interactions. The patient model is not validated against real patient behavior, and the paper provides no evidence that the simulated patients' utterances—including 'challenge the therapist's advice' behaviors—are representative of actual therapy conversations. A more cautious conclusion, such as 'feasible in simulated settings,' would be more accurate at this stage.

minor comments (4)

[§3.2] There is a typo: 'acccess' should be 'access' in the description of variant B.
[§4] The claim 'We cannot identify any obvious deficiencies with respect to our outlined requirements' is vague; the paper should specify the criteria used in the qualitative review of transcripts, or provide a more detailed breakdown of what was checked.
[§2.3] The paper states that 'a JSON-formatted script might be easier to interpret for the software, but is not necessary as LLMs can be asked to interpret unformatted text.' The chosen script format should be shown explicitly, since the appendix reference alone is not sufficient for the reader to assess the actual input used.
[§4, Table 1] The table presents averages without variance or distribution information; reporting standard deviations or per-dialog ranges would be informative, even if significance testing is deferred.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the architecture and its feasibility claim are self-contained, though the LLM-validator evaluation raises a validity concern rather than a circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. Script-Based Dialog Policy Planning is an architectural proposal in which a natural-language script is injected into LLM prompts; the feasibility claim is supported by 100 synthesized dialogs and by manual transcript review. The three effectiveness metrics are not fitted parameters: script-conform dispatchings are computed by direct comparison with the script's transition rules, and correct section completions and coherent switches are judged by a separate gpt-4o Validator LLM. That validator is an unvalidated measurement instrument with no human gold standard, which is a genuine correctness threat, but it is not a circular step: no parameter is estimated from the validator's judgments, no equation defines the conclusion in terms of the validator's outputs, and the validator is not the source of the architecture. The only self-citation (Langhammer et al. 2021 as the source of the exemplary script) is not load-bearing for the feasibility claim. Consequently, no quoted step satisfies the specified circularity criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted numerical parameters and no invented physical or computational entities. Its central claims rest on domain assumptions about LLM simulation, LLM-as-validator reliability, the adequacy of a non-clinical exemplar script, and the representability of therapy as a finite-state script. These assumptions are listed below.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption LLM-simulated patients are an adequate proxy for real therapy patients in evaluating feasibility.
Section 3.3 synthesizes 100 dialogs using gpt-4o-mini patient actors prompted with five APA case summaries; the feasibility conclusion in Section 4 is based on these dialogs, not on interactions with human users. If synthetic patients miss real user behavior, the demonstrated feasibility may not transfer.
domain assumption Validator LLM judgments are accurate without human ground truth.
Sections 3.4-3.5 use gpt-4o to judge whether sections were completed and switches were coherent, without human ground truth or inter-rater checks; the authors themselves dispute some of its low completion scores in Section 4, so the metric's validity is unestablished.
domain assumption The exemplar script is sufficient to test feasibility of the architecture.
Section 3.1 says the script was chosen for structure and length, not medical-therapeutic validity, and was adapted from a 2021 Corona Stressfrei chatbot; conclusions about an 'AI Therapist' therefore rest on a non-clinical stand-in script.
domain assumption Therapy can be represented as a finite-state script with sections and transition rules.
Section 2.3 assumes a natural-language script can encode expert therapeutic plans, and that LLMs can both follow it and stay fluent; this is plausible but not independently verified.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Script-Based Dialog Policy Planning for LLM-Powered Conversational Agents: A Basic Architecture for an "AI Therapist"." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4KMCHZSD

@misc{pith2026241215242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Script-Based Dialog Policy Planning for LLM-Powered Conversational Agents: A Basic Architecture for an "AI Therapist"},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4KMCHZSD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15242}
}

read the original abstract

Large Language Model (LLM)-Powered Conversational Agents have the potential to provide users with scaled behavioral healthcare support, and potentially even deliver full-scale "AI therapy'" in the future. While such agents can already conduct fluent and proactive emotional support conversations, they inherently lack the ability to (a) consistently and reliably act by predefined rules to align their conversation with an overarching therapeutic concept and (b) make their decision paths inspectable for risk management and clinical evaluation -- both essential requirements for an "AI Therapist". In this work, we introduce a novel paradigm for dialog policy planning in conversational agents enabling them to (a) act according to an expert-written "script" that outlines the therapeutic approach and (b) explicitly transition through a finite set of states over the course of the conversation. The script acts as a deterministic component, constraining the LLM's behavior in desirable ways and establishing a basic architecture for an AI Therapist. We implement two variants of Script-Based Dialog Policy Planning using different prompting techniques and synthesize a total of 100 conversations with LLM-simulated patients. The results demonstrate the feasibility of this new technology and provide insights into the efficiency and effectiveness of different implementation variants.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15242 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Script-Based Dialog Policy Planning, version with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Variant A: Exemplary dialog. 7. Exercise 3, Relaxation Technique: Introduce intervention and guide the patient through it. [→ 8] 8. Ending: Summarize the session, clarify questions, and say goodbye to the patient. The entire script is included in the technical appendix. 3.2 Implementation Variants Based on the proactive prompting techniques introduced in 2.2 as well as variations discussed in 2.3 with respect to in… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...
[2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...
[3]

American Psychological Association . 2008. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Depression: Case Examples. https://www.apa.org/depression-guideline/case-examples. Accessed: 2024-08-01

work page 2008
[4]

Besta, M.; Blach, N.; Kubicek, A.; Gerstenberger, R.; Gianinazzi, L.; Gajda, J.; Lehmann, T.; Podstawski, M.; Niewiadomski, H.; Nyczyk, P.; and Hoefler, T. 2023. Graph of Thoughts: Solving Elaborate Problems with Large Language Models. CoRR, abs/2308.09687

arXiv 2023
[5]

Chen, W.; Koenig, S.; and Dilkina, B. 2024. RePrompt: Planning by Automatic Prompt Engineering for Large Language Models Agents. CoRR, abs/2406.11132

arXiv 2024
[6]

Cheng, Y.; Zhang, C.; He, X.; et al. 2024. Exploring Large Language Model based Intelligent Agents: Definitions, Methods, and Prospects. CoRR, abs/2401.03428. Other-oa

arXiv 2024
[7]

Deng, Y.; Lei, W.; Lam, W.; and Chua, T. 2023 a . A Survey on Proactive Dialogue Systems: Problems, Methods, and Prospects. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2023, 19th-25th August 2023, Macao, SAR, China , 6583--6591. ijcai.org

work page 2023
[8]

Deng, Y.; Liao, L.; Chen, L.; Wang, H.; Lei, W.; and Chua, T. 2023 b . Prompting and Evaluating Large Language Models for Proactive Dialogues: Clarification, Target-guided, and Non-collaboration. In Bouamor, H.; Pino, J.; and Bali, K., eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, Singapore, December 6-10, 2023 , 10602--1062...

work page 2023

Show all 23 references

[9]

H.; and Chua, T

Deng, Y.; Liao, L.; Zheng, Z.; Yang, G. H.; and Chua, T. 2024. Towards Human-centered Proactive Conversational Agents. In Yang, G. H.; Wang, H.; Han, S.; Hauff, C.; Zuccon, G.; and Zhang, Y., eds., Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Deve...

2024
[10]

Deng, Y.; Zhang, W.; Lam, W.; Ng, S.; and Chua, T. 2023 c . Plug-and-Play Policy Planner for Large Language Model Powered Dialogue Agents. CoRR, abs/2311.00262

2023 arXiv
[11]

Harms, J.-G.; Kucherbaev, P.; Bozzon, A.; and Houben, G.-J. 2019. Approaches for Dialog Management in Conversational Agents. IEEE Internet Computing, 23(2): 13--22

2019
[12]

Jurafsky, D.; and Martin, J. H. 2024. Speech and Language Processing - An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University

2024
[13]

Kelley, R. 2024. Behavior Trees Enable Structured Programming of Language Model Agents. CoRR, abs/2404.07439

2024 arXiv
[14]

Langhammer, T.; Hilbert, K.; Praxl, B.; Kirschbaum, C.; Ertle, A.; Asbrand, J.; and Lueken, U. 2021. Mental health trajectories of individuals and families during the COVID-19 pandemic: Study protocol of a longitudinal investigation and indicated prevention program. Mental Hea...

2021
[15]

Pande, C.; Martin, A.; and Pimmer, C. 2023. Towards Hybrid Dialog Management Strategies for a Health Coach Chatbot. In Martin, A.; Fill, H.; Gerber, A.; Hinkelmann, K.; Lenat, D.; Stolle, R.; and van Harmelen, F., eds., Proceedings of the AAAI 2023 Spring Symposium on Challeng...

2023
[16]

C.; Stirman, S

Stade, E. C.; Stirman, S. W.; Ungar, L. H.; Boland, C. L.; Schwartz, H. A.; Yaden, D. B.; Sedoc, J.; DeRubeis, R. J.; Willer, R.; and Eichstaedt, J. C. 2024. Large language models could change the future of behavioral healthcare: a proposal for responsible development and eval...

2024
[17]

Wang, H.; Wang, R.; Mi, F.; Deng, Y.; Wang, Z.; Liang, B.; Xu, R.; and Wong, K. 2023. Cue-CoT: Chain-of-thought Prompting for Responding to In-depth Dialogue Questions with LLMs. In Bouamor, H.; Pino, J.; and Bali, K., eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Lingui...

2023
[18]

Wang, J.; Lin, D.; and Li, W. 2023. Dialogue Planning via Brownian Bridge Stochastic Process for Goal-directed Proactive Dialogue. In Rogers, A.; Boyd - Graber, J. L.; and Okazaki, N., eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, Toronto, Canada, ...

2023
[19]

Wu, W.; Guo, Z.; Zhou, X.; Wu, H.; Zhang, X.; Lian, R.; and Wang, H. 2019. Proactive Human-Machine Conversation with Explicit Conversation Goals. CoRR, abs/1906.05572

2019 arXiv
[20]

Yang, Z.; Wang, B.; Zhou, J.; Tan, Y.; Zhao, D.; Huang, K.; He, R.; and Hou, Y. 2022. TopKG: Target-oriented Dialog via Global Planning on Knowledge Graph. In Calzolari, N.; Huang, C.; Kim, H.; Pustejovsky, J.; Wanner, L.; Choi, K.; Ryu, P.; Chen, H.; Donatelli, L.; Ji, H.; Ku...

2022
[21]

L.; Cao, Y.; and Narasimhan, K

Yao, S.; Yu, D.; Zhao, J.; Shafran, I.; Griffiths, T. L.; Cao, Y.; and Narasimhan, K. 2023. Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models. CoRR, abs/2305.10601

2023 arXiv
[22]

Zhang, Q.; Naradowsky, J.; and Miyao, Y. 2023. Ask an Expert: Leveraging Language Models to Improve Strategic Reasoning in Goal-Oriented Dialogue Models. In Rogers, A.; Boyd - Graber, J. L.; and Okazaki, N., eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL ...

2023
[23]

Zheng, Z.; Liao, L.; Deng, Y.; and Nie, L. 2023. Building Emotional Support Chatbots in the Era of LLMs. CoRR, abs/2308.11584

2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

[2] [2]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

[3] [3]

American Psychological Association . 2008. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Depression: Case Examples. https://www.apa.org/depression-guideline/case-examples. Accessed: 2024-08-01

work page 2008

[4] [4]

Besta, M.; Blach, N.; Kubicek, A.; Gerstenberger, R.; Gianinazzi, L.; Gajda, J.; Lehmann, T.; Podstawski, M.; Niewiadomski, H.; Nyczyk, P.; and Hoefler, T. 2023. Graph of Thoughts: Solving Elaborate Problems with Large Language Models. CoRR, abs/2308.09687

arXiv 2023

[5] [5]

Chen, W.; Koenig, S.; and Dilkina, B. 2024. RePrompt: Planning by Automatic Prompt Engineering for Large Language Models Agents. CoRR, abs/2406.11132

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Cheng, Y.; Zhang, C.; He, X.; et al. 2024. Exploring Large Language Model based Intelligent Agents: Definitions, Methods, and Prospects. CoRR, abs/2401.03428. Other-oa

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Deng, Y.; Lei, W.; Lam, W.; and Chua, T. 2023 a . A Survey on Proactive Dialogue Systems: Problems, Methods, and Prospects. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2023, 19th-25th August 2023, Macao, SAR, China , 6583--6591. ijcai.org

work page 2023

[8] [8]

Deng, Y.; Liao, L.; Chen, L.; Wang, H.; Lei, W.; and Chua, T. 2023 b . Prompting and Evaluating Large Language Models for Proactive Dialogues: Clarification, Target-guided, and Non-collaboration. In Bouamor, H.; Pino, J.; and Bali, K., eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, Singapore, December 6-10, 2023 , 10602--1062...

work page 2023