From Syntax to Emotion: A Mechanistic Analysis of Emotion Inference in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in emotionally sensitive human-AI applications, yet little is known about how emotion recognition is internally represented. In this work, we investigate the internal mechanisms of emotion recognition in LLMs using sparse autoencoders (SAEs). By analyzing sparse feature activations across layers, we identify a consistent three-phase information flow, in which emotion-related features emerge only in the final phase. We further show that emotion representations comprise both shared features across emotions and emotion-specific features. Using phase-stratified causal tracing, we identify a small set of features that strongly influence emotion predictions, and show that both their number and causal impact vary across emotions; in particular, Disgust is more weakly and diffusely represented than other emotions. Finally, we propose an interpretable and data-efficient causal feature steering method that significantly improves emotion recognition performance across multiple models while largely preserving language modeling ability, and demonstrate that these improvements generalize across multiple emotion recognition datasets. Overall, our findings provide a systematic analysis of the internal mechanisms underlying emotion recognition in LLMs and introduce an efficient, interpretable, and controllable approach for improving model performance.

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.