Contextual Emotion Estimation from Image Captions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotion estimation in images is a challenging task, typically using computer vision methods to directly estimate people’s emotions using face, body pose and contextual cues. In this paper, we explore whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can support the contextual emotion estimation task, by first captioning images, then using an LLM for inference. First, we must understand: how well do LLMs perceive human emotions? And which parts of the information enable them to determine emotions? One initial challenge is to construct a caption that describes a person within a scene with information relevant for emotion perception. Towards this goal, we propose a set of natural language descriptors for faces, bodies, interactions, and environments. We use them to manually generate captions and emotion annotations for a subset of 331 images from the EMOTIC dataset. These captions offer an interpretable representation for emotion estimation, towards understanding how elements of a scene affect emotion perception in LLMs and beyond. Secondly, we test the capability of a large language model to infer an emotion from the resulting image captions. We find that GPT3.5, specifically the text-davinci-003 model, provides surprisingly reasonable emotion predictions consistent with human annotations, but accuracy can depend on the emotion concept. Overall, the results suggest promise in the image captioning and LLM approach.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".