The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
The Strong Pull of Prior Knowledge in Large Language Models and Its Impact on Emotion Recognition
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1109/acii63134.2024.00041
Abstract
In-context Learning (ICL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLM) without updating the models' parameters, in contrast to the traditional gradient-based finetuning. The promise of ICL is that the LLM can adapt to perform the present task at a competitive or state-of-the-art level at a fraction of the cost. The ability of LLMs to perform tasks in this few-shot manner relies on their background knowledge of the task (or task priors). However, recent work has found that, unlike traditional learning, LLMs are unable to fully integrate information from demonstrations that contrast task priors. This can lead to performance saturation at suboptimal levels, especially for subjective tasks such as emotion recognition, where the mapping from text to emotions can differ widely due to variability in human annotations. In this work, we design experiments and propose measurements to explicitly quantify the consistency of proxies of LLM priors and their pull on the posteriors. We show that LLMs have strong yet inconsistent priors in emotion recognition that ossify their predictions. We also find that the larger the model, the stronger these effects become. Our results suggest that caution is needed when using ICL with larger LLMs for affect-centered tasks outside their pre-training domain and when interpreting ICL results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The paper says current models exhibit deficits in emotional reasoning, including emotional intelligence, affective bias, and understanding cultural variation in emotional expression.
“current models exhibit deficits in emotional reasoning. This includes difficulties in emotional intelligence (EI) (Sabour et al., 2024; Hu et al., 2025; Amirizaniani et al., 2024b; Vzorinab et al., 2024), susceptibility to affective bias (Chochlakis et al., 2024), and limited understanding of cultural variations in emotional expression and interpretation (Havaldar et al., 2023).”
From Large Language Model Reasoning Failures (2026) · cites this paper as Chochlakis et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Chochlakis, G., Potamianos, A., Lerman, K., & Narayanan, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 318-326
- ISSN
- 2156-8103 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2403.17125
- OpenAlex
- W4409760024
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 1.48
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and workshops (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Keywords
- in-context learning, large language models, prior knowledge, emotion recognition, few-shot learning, model size effects, annotation variability, interpretability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review