Detecting Early and Implicit Suicidal Ideation via Longitudinal and Information Environment Signals on Social Media

Soorya Ram Shimgekar, Ruining Zhao, Agam Goyal, Violeta J. Rodriguez, Paul A. Bloom, Navin Kumar, Hari Sundaram, Koustuv Saha · Oct 16, 2025 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

On social media, several individuals experiencing suicidal ideation (SI) do not disclose their distress explicitly. Instead, signs may surface indirectly through everyday posts or peer interactions. Detecting such implicit signals early is critical but remains challenging. We frame early and implicit SI as a forward-looking prediction task and develop a computational framework that models a user's information environment, consisting of both their longitudinal posting histories as well as the discourse of their socially proximal peers. We adopted a composite network centrality measure to identify top neighbors of a user, and temporally aligned the user's and neighbors' interactions -- integrating the multi-layered signals in a fine-tuned DeBERTa-v3 model. In a Reddit study of 1,000 (500 Case and 500 Control) users, our approach improves early and implicit SI detection by an average of 10% over all other baselines. These findings highlight that peer interactions offer valuable predictive signals and carry broader implications for designing early detection systems that capture indirect as well as masked expressions of risk in online environments.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.