You Can't Prefer Emotions You Don't Sample: Intensity Undershoot in DPO-Tuned LLMs

How precisely can we tell a language model how to feel? Most work on emotional generation answers with a discrete label - happy, angry, sad - which cannot express a target like "mildly downcast but calm." We instead specify the desired affect as a continuous point (v*, a*) in the Valence-Arousal plane and train the model to hit it. Our method, VA-DPO, is a small modification to Direct Preference Optimization: a frozen VA regressor scores each sampled generation by its Euclidean distance to the target, we keep only candidate pairs whose distance gap clears a margin tau, and we optimize a LoRA adapter with the ordinary DPO loss against a frozen reference. The DPO objective itself is unchanged; what is new is how the preference data is built. On Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct this cuts mean VA distance to the target by 33% over system-prompting and 25% over few-shot prompting, lifting valence/arousal correlation to r_v=0.93 and r_a=0.75. The gains carry over to Qwen3-8B and Llama-3.2-3B, and they do not come at the usual price: MMLU is unchanged (Delta=+0.0) and HellaSwag and TruthfulQA are preserved. We release the code, configs, and the preference-construction pipeline.

Large language model (LLM)-based text-to-speech (TTS) systems enable prompt-conditioned emotional control but struggle with fine-grained emotion intensity due to the semantic -- acoustic gap between text and speech. To address this challenge, we formulate emotion intensity control in LLM-based TTS as a learning-to-rank problem and propose Emo-LiPO, a listwise preference optimization framework that aligns prompt-conditioned speech generation with relative emotion intensity expressed in text. Emo-LiPO explicitly models global intensity ordering within each emotion under fixed transcripts, enabling more faithful and continuous emotional expression. We further construct ESD-plus, a multi-speaker dataset with explicit emotion intensity variations, to support fine-grained emotion modeling and evaluation. Experiments on ESD-plus demonstrate that Emo-LiPO significantly improves emotion accuracy and intensity controllability over both supervised- and DPO-based LLM TTS baselines, with particularly pronounced gains at high intensity levels.

Do language models preserve the ordinal meaning of intensity words when those words must produce numeric actions? I study a researcher-constructed scale of 10 English degree modifiers, from slightly to drastically, informed by the Quirk et al. degree-modifier taxonomy, in a controlled resource-allocation environment where Claude Haiku receives a natural-language instruction, produces a numeric allocation, and a deterministic backend converts that allocation into a measurable outcome. The only variable that changes between runs is the intensity word or the starting system state, isolating their effects on the model's numeric output. Across 6,620 runs at T=0.0 and T=0.7, three patterns emerge. First, the model compresses 10 intensity words into 5 distinct median outputs: four lower-tier words all map to the same value, while stronger words break into higher regimes (Spearman rho = 0.845, p < 0.001). Second, when the current system state is supplied as context, separate Kruskal-Wallis tests show that grouping by starting allocation captures far more rank-based variance than grouping by word (epsilon-squared baseline = 0.782 vs. epsilon-squared word = 0.079), and lexical differentiation collapses to zero as the system approaches capacity. Third, near feasibility limits the model exhibits three behavioral modes: weak words hedge with small adjustments, strong words abstain entirely, and the word drastically pushes to the local ceiling. These patterns persist across temperature, with stochastic sampling broadening distributions but not restoring ordinal distinctions between words. In this model and domain, the model's numeric interpretation of vague intensity words is compressed, state-dependent, and discontinuous near operational boundaries.