Emotion Recognition

Labeling corpora constitutes a bottleneck to create models for new tasks or domains. Large language models mitigate the issue with automatic corpus labeling methods, particularly for categorical annotations. Some NLP tasks such as emotion intensity prediction, however, require text regression, but there is no work on automating annotations for continuous label assignments. Regression is considered more challenging than classification: The fact that humans perform worse when tasked to choose values from a rating scale lead to comparative annotation methods, including best-worst scaling. This raises the question if large language model-based annotation methods show similar patterns, namely that they perform worse on rating scale annotation tasks than on comparative annotation tasks. To study this, we automate emotion intensity predictions and compare direct rating scale predictions, pairwise comparisons and best-worst scaling. We find that the latter shows the highest reliability. A transformer regressor fine-tuned on these data performs nearly on par with a model trained on the original manual annotations.

Emotion Recognition in Conversations (ERC) aims to identify speakers' emotions in multi-turn dialogue. Accurate emotion recognition can support a wide range of applications, including empathetic conversational agents, mental health support, and educational technologies. While many recent approaches rely on task-specific fine-tuning, such models may exploit dataset-specific cues. A central yet rarely questioned assumption in ERC is that each utterance can be assigned a single unambiguous emotion label. To investigate this assumption, we study ERC using Large Language Models (LLMs) in a zero-shot setting while incorporating preceding conversational turns as context. We show that aggregate metrics mask systematic failures. Errors concentrate around utterances containing negations, exclamations, and interjections. This pattern is consistent across all evaluated models, suggesting limitations in the benchmarks rather than model-specific weaknesses. A controlled re-annotation study involving four human annotators supports this finding: strong agreement is observed in only 35 percent of cases, with neutral utterances dominating high-agreement instances, while many emotional categories fall into low-agreement regimes. These findings suggest that many apparent model errors reflect genuine annotation ambiguity rather than poor emotion understanding. Standard single-label evaluation is therefore insufficient. To address this limitation, we introduce an LLM-as-Judge framework that evaluates each emotion independently according to its plausibility in the conversational context rather than enforcing a single-label decision.