Understanding Emotion in Discourse: Recognition Insights and Linguistic Patterns for Generation
Fuente:
arXiv
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Preprint |
| Pubblicazione: |
2026
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1866910015141445632 |
|---|---|
| author | Jeong, Cheonkam Nyamathi, Adeline |
| author_facet | Jeong, Cheonkam Nyamathi, Adeline |
| contents | Despite strong recent progress in Emotion Recognition in Conversation (ERC), two gaps remain: we lack clear understanding of which modeling choices materially affect performance, and we have limited linguistic analysis linking recognition findings to actionable generation cues. We address both via a systematic study on IEMOCAP.
For recognition, we conduct controlled ablations with 10 random seeds and paired tests (with correction for multiple comparisons), yielding three findings. First, conversational context is dominant: performance saturates quickly, with roughly 90% of gain achieved using only the most recent 10-30 preceding turns. Second, hierarchical sentence representations improve utterance-only recognition (K=0), but the benefit vanishes once turn-level context is available, suggesting conversational history subsumes intra-utterance structure. Third, external affective lexicon (SenticNet) integration does not improve results, consistent with pretrained encoders already capturing affective signal. Under strictly causal (past-only) setting, our simple models attain strong performance (82.69% 4-way; 67.07% 6-way weighted F1).
For linguistic analysis, we examine 5,286 discourse-marker occurrences and find reliable association between emotion and marker position (p < 0.0001). Sad utterances show reduced left-periphery marker usage (21.9%) relative to other emotions (28-32%), aligning with accounts linking left-periphery markers to active discourse management. This pattern is consistent with Sad benefiting most from conversational context (+22%p), suggesting sadness relies more on discourse history than overt pragmatic signaling. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2601_00181 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Understanding Emotion in Discourse: Recognition Insights and Linguistic Patterns for Generation Jeong, Cheonkam Nyamathi, Adeline Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence Despite strong recent progress in Emotion Recognition in Conversation (ERC), two gaps remain: we lack clear understanding of which modeling choices materially affect performance, and we have limited linguistic analysis linking recognition findings to actionable generation cues. We address both via a systematic study on IEMOCAP. For recognition, we conduct controlled ablations with 10 random seeds and paired tests (with correction for multiple comparisons), yielding three findings. First, conversational context is dominant: performance saturates quickly, with roughly 90% of gain achieved using only the most recent 10-30 preceding turns. Second, hierarchical sentence representations improve utterance-only recognition (K=0), but the benefit vanishes once turn-level context is available, suggesting conversational history subsumes intra-utterance structure. Third, external affective lexicon (SenticNet) integration does not improve results, consistent with pretrained encoders already capturing affective signal. Under strictly causal (past-only) setting, our simple models attain strong performance (82.69% 4-way; 67.07% 6-way weighted F1). For linguistic analysis, we examine 5,286 discourse-marker occurrences and find reliable association between emotion and marker position (p < 0.0001). Sad utterances show reduced left-periphery marker usage (21.9%) relative to other emotions (28-32%), aligning with accounts linking left-periphery markers to active discourse management. This pattern is consistent with Sad benefiting most from conversational context (+22%p), suggesting sadness relies more on discourse history than overt pragmatic signaling. |
| title | Understanding Emotion in Discourse: Recognition Insights and Linguistic Patterns for Generation |
| topic | Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.00181 |