Abstract:While Emotion Recognition in Conversation (ERC) has achieved high accuracy, two critical gaps remain: a limited understanding of \textit{which} architectural choices actually matter, and a lack of linguistic analysis connecting recognition to generation. We address both gaps through a systematic analysis of the IEMOCAP dataset. For recognition, we conduct a rigorous ablation study with 10-seed evaluation and report three key findings. First, conversational context is paramount, with performance saturating rapidly – 90% of the total gain achieved within just the most recent 10–30 preceding turns (depending on the label set). Second, hierarchical sentence repre…
Abstract:While Emotion Recognition in Conversation (ERC) has achieved high accuracy, two critical gaps remain: a limited understanding of \textit{which} architectural choices actually matter, and a lack of linguistic analysis connecting recognition to generation. We address both gaps through a systematic analysis of the IEMOCAP dataset. For recognition, we conduct a rigorous ablation study with 10-seed evaluation and report three key findings. First, conversational context is paramount, with performance saturating rapidly – 90% of the total gain achieved within just the most recent 10–30 preceding turns (depending on the label set). Second, hierarchical sentence representations help at utterance-level, but this benefit disappears once conversational context is provided, suggesting that context subsumes intra-utterance structure. Third, external affective lexicons (SenticNet) provide no gain, indicating that pre-trained encoders already capture necessary emotional semantics. With simple architectures using strictly causal context, we achieve 82.69% (4-way) and 67.07% (6-way) weighted F1, outperforming prior text-only methods including those using bidirectional context. For linguistic analysis, we analyze 5,286 discourse marker occurrences and find a significant association between emotion and marker positioning ($p < .0001$). Notably, "sad" utterances exhibit reduced left-periphery marker usage (21.9%) compared to other emotions (28–32%), consistent with theories linking left-periphery markers to active discourse management. This connects to our recognition finding that sadness benefits most from context (+22%p): lacking explicit pragmatic signals, sad utterances require conversational history for disambiguation.
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2601.00181 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2601.00181v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.00181 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) |
Submission history
From: Cheonkam Jeong [view email] [v1] Thu, 1 Jan 2026 02:49:44 UTC (760 KB)