Fluent but Unfeeling: The Emotional Blind Spots of Language Models

The versatility of Large Language Models (LLMs) in natural language understanding has made them increasingly popular in mental health research. While many studies explore LLMs' capabilities in emotion recognition, a critical gap remains in evaluating whether LLMs align with human emotions at a fine-grained level. Existing research typically focuses on classifying emotions into predefined, limited categories, overlooking more nuanced expressions. To address this gap, we introduce EXPRESS, a benchmark dataset curated from Reddit communities featuring 251 fine-grained, self-disclosed emotion labels. Our comprehensive evaluation framework examines predicted emotion terms and decomposes them into eight basic emotions using established emotion theories, enabling a fine-grained comparison. Systematic testing of prevalent LLMs under various prompt settings reveals that accurately predicting emotions that align with human self-disclosed emotions remains challenging. Qualitative analysis further shows that while certain LLMs generate emotion terms consistent with established emotion theories and definitions, they sometimes fail to capture contextual cues as effectively as human self-disclosures. These findings highlight the limitations of LLMs in fine-grained emotion alignment and offer insights for future research aimed at enhancing their contextual understanding.

You don't need a personality test to know these models are unreliable: Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Models on Psychometric Instruments

The versatility of Large Language Models (LLMs) on natural language understanding tasks has made them popular for research in social sciences. In particular, to properly understand the properties and innate personas of LLMs, researchers have performed studies that involve using prompts in the form of questions that ask LLMs of particular opinions. In this study, we take a cautionary step back and examine whether the current format of prompting enables LLMs to provide responses in a consistent and robust manner. We first construct a dataset that contains 693 questions encompassing 39 different instruments of persona measurement on 115 persona axes. Additionally, we design a set of prompts containing minor variations and examine LLM's capabilities to generate accurate answers, as well as consistency variations to examine their consistency towards simple perturbations such as switching the option order. Our experiments on 15 different open-source LLMs reveal that even simple perturbations are sufficient to significantly downgrade a model's question-answering ability, and that most LLMs have low negation consistency. Our results suggest that the currently widespread practice of prompting is insufficient to accurately capture model perceptions, and we discuss potential alternatives to improve such issues.