Emotional Theory of Mind: Bridging Fast Visual Processing with Slow Linguistic Reasoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emotional theory of mind problem requires facial expressions, body pose, contextual information and implicit commonsense knowledge to reason about the person's emotion and its causes, making it currently one of the most difficult problems in affective computing. In this work, we propose multiple methods to incorporate the emotional reasoning capabilities by constructing “narrative captions” relevant to emotion perception, that includes contextual and physical signal descriptors that focuses on “Who”, “What”, “Where” and “How” questions related to the image and emotions of the individual. We propose two distinct ways to construct these captions using zero-shot classifiers (CLIP) and fine-tuning visual-language models (LLaVA) over human generated descriptors. We further utilize these captions to guide the reasoning of language (GPT-4) and vision-language models (LLa Va, GPT-Vision). We evaluate the use of the resulting models in an image-to-language-to-emotion task. Our experiments showed that combining the “Fast” narrative descriptors and “Slow” reasoning of language models is a promising way to achieve emotional theory of mind.
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) | 0.002 | 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".