Representing Affect Information in Word Embeddings
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
A growing body of research in natural language processing (NLP) and natural language understanding (NLU) is investigating human-like knowledge learned or encoded in the word embeddings from large language models. This is a step towards understanding what knowledge language models capture that resembles human understanding of language and communication. Here, we investigated whether and how the affect meaning of a word (i.e., valence, arousal, dominance) is encoded in word embeddings pre-trained in large neural networks. We used the human-labeled dataset as the ground truth and performed various correlational and classification tests on four types of word embeddings. The embeddings varied in being static or contextualized, and how much affect specific information was prioritized during the pre-training and fine-tuning phase. Our analyses show that word embedding from the vanilla BERT model did not saliently encode the affect information of English words. Only when the BERT model was fine-tuned on emotion-related tasks or contained extra contextualized information from emotion-rich contexts could the corresponding embedding encode more relevant affect information.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Sep 2022.
Builds on
17 of 42 references.
References · 17
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
- 2013Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionalitycited by 3,462
- 2015Character-level Convolutional Networks for Text Classificationcited by 2,293
- 2016Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Informationcited by 1,578
- 2019How Contextual are Contextualized Word Representations? Comparing the Geometry of BERT, ELMo, and GPT-2 Embeddingscited by 770
- 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 553
- 2020GoEmotions: A Dataset of Fine-Grained Emotionscited by 479
- 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 350
- 2019What BERT is not: Lessons from a new suite of psycholinguistic diagnostics for language modelscited by 317
- 2020A Systematic Assessment of Syntactic Generalization in Neural Language Modelscited by 163
- 2018What do RNN Language Models Learn about Filler-Gap Dependencies?cited by 86
5 more
- 2019Does BERT Make Any Sense? Interpretable Word Sense Disambiguation with Contextualized Embeddingscited by 55
- 2020Spying on your neighbors: Fine-grained probing of contextual embeddings for information about surrounding wordscited by 28
- 2020Contextualized Word Embeddings Encode Aspects of Human-Like Word Sense Knowledgecited by 18
- 2021Pragmatic competence of pre-trained language models through the lens of discourse connectivescited by 16
- 2021Using Knowledge-Embedded Attention to Augment Pre-trained Language Models for Fine-Grained Emotion Recognitioncited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1.
3 papers.
- 2025Emotions Where Art Thou: Understanding and Characterizing the Emotional Latent Space of Large Language Modelscited by 14
- 2023Can Language Models Be Tricked by Language Illusions? Easier with Syntax, Harder with Semanticscited by 11
- 2024A Linguistic Comparison between Human and ChatGPT-Generated Conversationscited by 9
- 2025Emotions Where Art Thou: Understanding and Characterizing the Emotional Latent Space of Large Language Models24 Oct 2025
- 2024A Linguistic Comparison between Human and ChatGPT-Generated Conversations29 Jan 2024
- 2023Can Language Models Be Tricked by Language Illusions? Easier with Syntax, Harder with Semantics2 Nov 2023