Bias-Corrected Ceilings of Emotion Predictability from Human Label Variation Based on Instance-Level Fano Bounds

Emotion recognition benchmarks often predict one emotion per text, missing many real-world scenarios where two people arrive at opposing emotions from a single shared event. For example, a child kicks the seat in front of her in excitement while the passenger ahead grows angry. We introduce CHIARO, a 1,000 human-annotated sentence benchmark for contrastive emotion inference grounded in appraisal theory. Each scene describes one causal trigger eliciting a positive emotion in one person and a negative emotion in the other, drawn from a ten-class taxonomy. We benchmark seven frontier LLMs and four off-the-shelf emotion classifiers. The strongest LLM reaches 67.3 macro-F1, well below human agreement, while existing emotion classifiers score near chance. Beyond evaluation, CHIARO also serves as a training signal. When combined with an existing emotion corpus, the resulting downstream classifier improves on CHIARO itself and on six of ten external emotion benchmarks, which positions our dataset as a complementary signal for emotion recognition.

Voice products increasingly need affective cues that are present in speech but absent from transcripts. We introduce VocalAffectBench, a public, test-only benchmark for evaluating whether AI audio models can identify expressed vocal emotion from raw audio. The benchmark contains 273 human-recorded English WAV clips from 51 speaker accounts totaling 1.95 hours across seven labels: angry, disgusted, fearful, happy, neutral, sad, and surprised, with 39 clips per class. All baselines are evaluated from audio alone, without transcripts or contextual metadata. Across six released baselines, average accuracy is 35.5%. The strongest baseline, gemini_3_5_flash, reaches 46.5% on the seven-way task, above the 14.3% random baseline but far from robust emotion recognition. A secondary valence-bucket analysis maps labels into positive, neutral, and negative classes, excluding surprised because its valence is ambiguous. Aggregate accuracy under this coarser view is 50.9%. Performance is highly uneven across classes. By recall, neutral is identified most reliably at 75.6% averaged across baselines, while surprised and fearful reach only 10.7% and 15.4%, respectively. These results show that the evaluated baselines can extract some affective signal from speech, but discrete expressed-emotion recognition remains fragile, especially for non-neutral emotions that are often most important in voice agent workflows.

Emotion annotation is inherently subjective, yet most NLP pipelines still assume "gold" labels, typically produced by majority voting, and treat annotator variation as noise. In this paper, we present a multilabel emotion annotation case study and use it to examine how annotator behavior and aggregation choices affect both agreement estimates and downstream emotion classifiers. Rather than collapsing disagreement into a single label, we represent targets as soft vote-share labels (including an intensity-weighted variant) and evaluate models using both thresholded metrics (macro-/micro-F1) and probabilistic alignment (Bernoulli cross-entropy SoftBCE), alongside data-derived disagreement diagnostics. Across annotation regimes, we show that disagreement is structured and leaves measurable traces in model behavior: hard labels may maximize F1 metrics, while soft supervision yields predictions that better reflect empirical annotator variance and uncertainty. Our results provide practical guidance for designing, aggregating, and evaluating multilabel emotion datasets when multiple interpretations are plausible.