Real Emotions Don't Stand Still: Toward Ecologically Viable Representation of Affective Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To create emotionally expressive robots, designers of human-robot interaction routinely translate emotion theories into instruments through which we estimate, quantify and analyze human emotional responses to robot behaviour. Pragmatically, we often use straightforward models such as Russell's circumplex, treating emotion as a single point in a two-dimensional space. However, this simple metaphor and its consequent representations omit many aspects of real emotional experience, can lead to erroneous data and may undermine computational models that rely on them. Problems with emotion representations currently prevalent in human-robot interaction fall into three categories: (1)Representations are static and singular, whereas real emotions can be dynamic, multi-valued, uncertain or conflicting. (2)The framing of an interaction is unspecified (i.e., in an affective rating task: which part of an interaction involving multiple parties and perspectives the participant is meant to consider). (3) Participant responses captured with instruments and methods that are not well-understood by experimenters nor participants produce data that is hard to interpret. We propose alternative emotion representations to account for dynamic emotions inherent in interactive contexts; scrutinize framing ambiguities in study tasks and argue for mixed-methods approaches to achieve shared understanding of emotion representations between participants and researchers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".