# The Strong Pull of Prior Knowledge in Large Language Models and Its Impact on Emotion Recognition

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.17125 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.17125/

## Key facts

- Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 36 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Mar 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 36)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15043/) (2023)
- [Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.07682/) (2022)
- [Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04615/) (2022)
- [Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.12837/) (2022)
- [Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09690/) (2021)
- [What Makes Good In-Context Examples for GPT-3?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.06804/) (2021)
- [MPNet: Masked and Permuted Pre-training for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.09297/) (2020)
- [An Explanation of In-context Learning as Implicit Bayesian Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.02080/) (2021)
- [Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.07187/) (2016)
- [Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17548/) (2023)
- [Learning To Retrieve Prompts for In-Context Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.08633/) (2021)
- [GoEmotions: A Dataset of Fine-Grained Emotions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00547/) (2020)
- [Dataset Cartography: Mapping and Diagnosing Datasets with Training Dynamics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.10795/) (2020)
- [Larger language models do in-context learning differently](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.03846/) (2023)
- [Data Distributional Properties Drive Emergent In-Context Learning in Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.05055/) (2022)
- [Lipstick on a Pig: Debiasing Methods Cover up Systematic Gender Biases in Word Embeddings But do not Remove Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.03862/) (2019)
- [Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.03514/) (2023)
- [Fine-tuning language models to find agreement among humans with diverse preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.15006/) (2022)
- [The political ideology of conversational AI: Converging evidence on ChatGPT's pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.01768/) (2023)
- [What In-Context Learning "Learns" In-Context: Disentangling Task Recognition and Task Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.09731/) (2023)
- [Should ChatGPT be Biased? Challenges and Risks of Bias in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03738/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Large Language Model Reasoning Failures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.06176/) (2026)
- [Large Language Models Do Multi-Label Classification Differently](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.17510/) (2025)
- [Larger Language Models Don't Care How You Think: Why Chain-of-Thought Prompting Fails in Subjective Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.06173/) (2024)
- [Humans Hallucinate Too: Language Models Identify and Correct Subjective Annotation Errors With Label-in-a-Haystack Prompts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.17222/) (2025)
- [Aggregation Artifacts in Subjective Tasks Collapse Large Language Models' Posteriors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13776/) (2024)
- [Emo Pillars: Knowledge Distillation to Support Fine-Grained Context-Aware and Context-Less Emotion Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.16856/) (2025)
- [Can Large Language Models Capture Video Game Engagement?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.04379/) (2025)
- [Predicting Emotion Intensity in Polish Political Texts: Comparing Supervised Models and Large Language Models in a Resource-Poor Language](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12141/) (2024)
- [Do Vision Language Models Understand Human Engagement in Games?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.18480/) (2026)
- [Expressing Social Emotions: Misalignment Between LLMs and Human Cultural Emotion Norms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.16757/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In-context Learning (ICL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLM) without updating the models' parameters, in contrast to the traditional gradient-based finetuning. The promise of ICL is that the LLM can adapt to perform the present task at a competitive or state-of-the-art level at a fraction of the cost. The ability of LLMs to perform tasks in this few-shot manner relies on their background knowledge of the task (or task priors). However, recent work has found that, unlike traditional learning, LLMs are unable to fully integrate information from demonstrations that contrast task priors. This can lead to performance saturation at suboptimal levels, especially for subjective tasks such as emotion recognition, where the mapping from text to emotions can differ widely due to variability in human annotations. In this work, we design experiments and propose measurements to explicitly quantify the consistency of proxies of LLM priors and their pull on the posteriors. We show that LLMs have strong yet inconsistent priors in emotion recognition that ossify their predictions. We also find that the larger the model, the stronger these effects become. Our results suggest that caution is needed when using ICL with larger LLMs for affect-centered tasks outside their pre-training domain and when interpreting ICL results.