← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.462 · 记录 #1
Feeling Rules in Language Models: Mapping Norms of Emotional Appropriateness Across Roles, Institutions, and Intensity
来源日期（仅到月份） 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 22:02
摘要
When asked explicitly, a Large language model (LLM) may validate your anger—but implicitly, it may still judge that anger as inappropriate. We call this divergence the endorsement–exposure gap, and it reveals that LLMs encode hidden norms about which emotions are acceptable in which contexts. To measure these norms systematically, we introduce Feeling Rules Atlas, a benchmark of 1,320 vignettes spanning 6 institutional settings, 12 roles, 7 emotions, and 5 intensity levels. We pair the benchmark with two probes: explicit norm judgments (APPROPRIATE/INAPPROPRIATE/DEPENDS) and implicit acceptability scored by log-likelihood contrast. Across six model families, we find large cross-model variation in sanctioning thresholds and institutional “norm signatures” not reducible to overall strictness; models that appear similarly lenient explicitly can diverge sharply in implicit judgments. These results establish normative affect—context-conditioned judgments of emotional appropriateness—as a distinct alignment axis, and motivate transparent profiling of feeling rules for emotionally sensitive deployments.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索，不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化，不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时，按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
Feeling Rules in Language Models: Mapping Norms of Emotional Appropriateness Across Roles, Institutions, and Intensity
When asked explicitly, a Large language model (LLM) may validate your anger—but implicitly, it may still judge that anger as inappropriate. We call this divergence the endorsement–exposure gap, and it reveals that LLMs encode hidden norms about which emotions are acceptable in which contexts. To measure these norms systematically, we introduce Feeling Rules Atlas, a benchmark of 1,320 vignettes spanning 6 institutional settings, 12 roles, 7 emotions, and 5 intensity levels. We pair the benchmark with two probes: explicit norm judgments (APPROPRIATE/INAPPROPRIATE/DEPENDS) and implicit acceptability scored by log-likelihood contrast. Across six model families, we find large cross-model variation in sanctioning thresholds and institutional “norm signatures” not reducible to overall strictness; models that appear similarly lenient explicitly can diverge sharply in implicit judgments. These results establish normative affect—context-conditioned judgments of emotional appropriateness—as a distinct alignment axis, and motivate transparent profiling of feeling rules for emotionally sensitive deployments.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗