cs.AIJun 30, 2026

Who Determines the Meaning of an Emotion? Affective Sovereignty as an Epistemic Consequence of Measurement Limits

Authors: Keito Inoshita

Abstract

Emotion-sensing AI is rapidly becoming embedded in vehicles, home appliances, dialogue agents, and social infrastructure, giving rise to a sphere in which emotion is no longer confined to individual experience but is instead observed and computed at a societal scale, a domain we term the Affectosphere. Yet a central normative question in this domain has remained underexplored: who has the final authority to determine the meaning of one's own emotion? This study addresses the question from the epistemological side of measurement's structural limits. We define a meaning distribution as the distribution of labels assigned by annotators drawn from a population under a fixed annotation protocol, and decompose its uncertainty into reducible and irreducible components. We then demonstrate that, while emotion AI can assign high-confidence point labels and discriminate real differences at an aggregate level, the irreducible component of the meaning distribution for individual instances cannot be estimated with adequate coverage under realistic annotator counts, a systematic divergence we term the epistemic gap. The key finding is that high device confidence does not constitute evidence that irrecoverable meaning has been recovered. From this epistemic gap, together with an explicitly stated normative premise, namely that the output of a system which cannot recover a quantity in principle must not be treated as its authoritative determination, we derive the norm that the final interpretive authority over the meaning of one's emotion is procedurally reserved for the experiencing subject, the norm of affective sovereignty. These results suggest that the design, evaluation, and regulation of emotion AI should place explicit allocation of interpretive authority, rather than accuracy maximisation, at their core.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Aug 2, 2026cs.CY

The Epistemic Politics of AI Anthropomorphism

AI anthropomorphism is typically treated as a problem of user misperception requiring institutional correction. Users who engage in sustained or relational interaction with AI are routinely pathologised or dismissed as naive, vulnerable to delusion or lacking in discernment. This paper argues that the dominant anthropomorphism frame operates from a position of institutional advantage rather than earned epistemic authority: collapsing the variety of academic perspectives into a single outbound position of user error, imposed without establishing the grounds required to justify it and without accounting for the harms it produces. The framing does not simply manage risk. It adjudicates the legitimacy of human experience in interaction with a phenomenon whose nature the field itself has not resolved. Reproducing itself through a self-validating evidentiary loop, the frame imposes costs that fall disproportionately on neurodivergent users, those in crisis and others whose modes of engagement diverge from institutional norms. The paper concludes by outlining the methodological commitments an equitable framing would need to honour. The argument does not engage the question of whether anthropomorphic interpretations are ultimately correct; it instead challenges whether the governing and institutional bodies determining these interpretations have met the conditions required to do so, and whether the research communities whose findings underpin them have held that translation to account.
Donna M Bye, Levin Kuhlmann
AnthropomorphismEpistemic ActionsAutism Spectrum DisorderRelational
AskPDF
Jul 1, 2026cs.CL

Faithful by Definition: Emotion Analysis via Natural Semantic Metalanguage Explications

Explanations for emotion classifiers are usually produced post hoc, with no guarantee that they reflect the computation behind the label. We present an explication interface for event-based emotion analysis. A parser maps the input text to an explication, a short script in the closed vocabulary of Natural Semantic Metalanguage organized into twelve typed slots, and a fixed decision list of rules transcribed from published semantic definitions computes the label from the explication alone. The faithfulness guarantee is therefore causal and definitional, while all empirical risk lives in the learned parser, which the per-line entailment interface makes auditable against the input. On crowd-sourced event descriptions, our fine-tuned parser reaches 0.33 accuracy and 0.48 selective accuracy on a small held-out set, suggesting that the interface trades insignificant accuracy difference to a black-box model for a verifiable, inspectable decision basis for first-person event-based emotion analysis. We also release EmoExpl-1200 with per-line verification metadata and the full rule set.
Frank Xing, Erik Cambria
Emotion RecognitionEntailmentRationalesExplanation Faithfulness
AskPDF
Aug 5, 2026cs.CL

NTDH: Complex Reasoning for Comprehensive Affective Analysis

Comprehensive affective analysis is challenging for two reasons: it spans heterogeneous prediction tasks with continuous, ordinal, and multi-label outputs, and affective meaning is context-dependent, requiring conflicting cues to be reconciled rather than mapped directly to labels. Existing methods learn this mapping directly and do not model the reconciliation explicitly. We recast the task as a complex-reasoning problem, which yields one output interface across heterogeneous label spaces and a trajectory over which a verifiable reward can be optimised; to our knowledge, this is the first such treatment covering both sentiment and emotion. The obstacle is on the data side: affective reasoning traces must be synthesised, and generic synthesis is misaligned with the targets, tolerances, and phenomena of affect, and discards or leaks its failure cases. We propose NTDH, which addresses these four failures. Naturalisation sets the training answer to the gold label, so it is correct by construction. A Tolerance-aware gate checks each answer against the task's own scoring margin. Domain-aware strategies refine the reasoning using ideas from affective science. Directional Hints report only the type and direction of an error, without exposing the target. We train Qwen3-8B with SFT and then GRPO under the same tolerance used for verification (up to a more permissive construction gate on the multi-label subtask), and a component ablation quantifies the data-quality effect of each part. Using 16,302 training records, about 14x fewer than comparable instruction-tuned systems, the final policy improves over its SFT checkpoint on five of six official-test metrics and achieves the strongest EI-reg result among the compared systems, at a Pearson correlation of 0.862.
Tianlei Zhu, Zhiwei Liu, Yuyan Wang +2
Affective ComputingSentiment AnalysisMulti-Label Classification
AskPDF