Efficient Cross-Task Prompt Tuning for Few-Shot Conversational Emotion Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotion Recognition in Conversation (ERC) has been widely studied due to its importance in developing emotion-aware empathetic machines. The rise of pre-trained language models (PLMs) has further pushed the limit of ERC performance. However, most recent works on ERC using PLMs are heavily data-driven, and requires fine-tuning the entire PLMs. To improve both sample and computational efficiency, we propose a derivative-free optimization method called Cross-Task Prompt Tuning (CTPT) for few-shot conversational emotion recognition. Unlike existing methods that learn independent knowledge from individual tasks, CTPT leverages sharable cross-task knowledge by exploiting external knowledge from other source tasks to improve learning performance under the few-shot setting. Moreover, CTPT only needs to optimize a vector under the low intrinsic dimensionality without gradient, which is highly parameter-efficient compared with existing approaches. Experiments on five different contextual conversation datasets demonstrate that our CTPT method has superior results on both few-shot scenarios and zero-shot transfers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".