Dimensional Emotion Analysis

• Dimensional emotion analysis is a computational framework that represents emotional states as points in continuous spaces defined by dimensions like valence and arousal.
• Researchers employ methods such as CNNs, RNNs, and transformers to map text, speech, and visual data into these structured affective spaces.
• Robust evaluation metrics like CCC and RMSE, along with alignment techniques, enhance model reliability despite challenges in real-time and context-sensitive scenarios.

Dimensional emotion analysis is the computational and theoretical framework for representing, annotating, and modeling affective phenomena as continuous trajectories or points in one or more psychological dimensions—most canonically valence (pleasantness) and arousal (activation)—instead of categorical emotion labels. This paradigm underpins a wide spectrum of modern emotion recognition and modeling systems, supporting applications in text, speech, vision, and multimodal affective computing. The sections below provide a detailed account of its core principles, foundational models, technical methodologies, evaluation strategies, empirical results, and current challenges.

1. Theoretical Foundations and Dimensional Emotion Models

Dimensional models posit that affective states are best described as points in a real-valued vector space, typically of low dimension ($d=2$ or $3$). The most influential frameworks are:

• Valence–Arousal (VA) and Valence–Arousal–Dominance (VAD):
  • VA: 2D, widely adopted for text, speech, and facial expression analysis.
  • VAD: 3D, adds a control/dominance dimension, yielding richer geometric structure.
• Appraisal Theories:

Appraisal-based dimensional models represent affect using a high-dimensional vector of cognitive–evaluative checks (e.g., novelty, responsibility, control), as formalized in the Component Process Model with 21 continuous dimensions (Troiano et al., 2022).

• High-Dimensional Data-Driven Spaces:

Large empirical studies, especially in video and image analysis, structure affective responses in spaces with dozens of dimensions (e.g., 34–80 category axes rated continuously) (Asanuma et al., 19 May 2025).

Mathematically, a dimensional emotion space is

$$\mathbf{e} = (e_1, e_2, \ldots, e_d) \in \mathbb{R}^d$$

where each coordinate corresponds to a psychologically or empirically motivated affective property.

2. Annotation Protocols and Corpus Construction

Dimensional emotion analysis depends critically on obtaining reliable, continuous ground truth. Key practices include:

• Continuous Trace Annotation:

For temporal data (speech, video), multiple raters independently provide time-varying annotations (e.g., $a_r(t)$, $v_r(t)$) sampled at high frequency (10–100 Hz). These traces often require time alignment and correction for delays and biases (Alisamir et al., 2022).

• Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) and Likert Scales:

Dimensional judgments for text or image data are obtained via standardized instruments (e.g., SAM on 1–5 or 1–9 point scales) from both "writer" and "reader" perspectives (Buechel et al., 2022).

• Appraisal Instruments:

High-dimensional sequences of cognitive checks, each on an ordinal scale, systematically elicit fine-grained evaluations of emotional events (Troiano et al., 2022).

• Verification and Semi-Automation:

Annotation quality is enhanced by cross-validation (e.g., multiple annotators per item), automated or semi-automated sanity checks, and smoothing or alignment stages (Guo et al., 16 Nov 2025).

For high-dimensional or multimodal corpora, such as EmoVerse (visual DES embeddings) or EEmoDB (vision-language DES+CES), annotation is performed through a combination of automated LLM pipelines, agreement filtering, and critic agents to ensure quality and coverage (Guo et al., 16 Nov 2025, Gao et al., 1 Feb 2026).

3. Computational Modeling and Predictive Architectures

Dimensional emotion analysis employs a diverse suite of machine learning methodologies:

• Regression and Manifold Learning:

Linear regression, kernel/SVD-based manifold learning, and neural regressors map high-dimensional input features (text, audio, vision) into low-dimensional affective spaces (Kim et al., 2013, Zhou et al., 2018, Buechel et al., 2022).

• Deep Neural Architectures:
  • CNNs, RNNs, CNN–RNN Hybrid Models:
  • Visual, audio, or multimodal features are extracted, temporally modeled, and mapped to continuous affect in networks trained with appropriate loss functions (typically mean squared error or Concordance Correlation Coefficient, CCC) (Kollias et al., 2018, Praveen et al., 2021, Yicheng et al., 2019).
  • Attention and Transformer-Based Models:
  • Pretrained language and speech models (BERT, HuBERT, RoBERTa, XLM-R) with regression heads for VAD/VA are effective and highly transferable (Mendes et al., 2023, Mitra et al., 2023, Zhou et al., 2023).
  • Contrastive Geometric Learning:
  • Circumplex or hyperspherical geometries can be imposed on the embedding space via specialized contrastive losses (e.g., CircularCSE), biasing model representations toward interpretable, low-dimensional affective manifolds (Yamauchi et al., 10 Jan 2026).
• Dynamic Time Alignment and Preprocessing:

RNN-based warping compensates for annotator delays and scale biases, refining dimensional traces before model training (Alisamir et al., 2022).

• Appraisal-Informed and Joint Models:
  • Integration of appraisal dimensions or joint training with category and dimensional objectives fosters interpretability, performance, and transfer across annotation formats (Troiano et al., 2022, Yicheng et al., 2019, Park et al., 2019).
• Salient Subspace Selection and Efficient Representation:
  • Saliency-based techniques identify minimal subsets of features preserving emotion-relevant variance, supporting model compactness and computational efficiency (Mitra et al., 2023).

4. Evaluation Metrics and Experimental Protocols

Modeling effectiveness is assessed using regression and agreement metrics designed for continuous outputs:

• Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC):

Quantifies both correlation and mean bias between predictions and annotated ground truth, preferred for continuous time series or population-level regression (Kollias et al., 2018, Praveen et al., 2021, Alisamir et al., 2022).

• Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE):

Used for direct regression accuracy measurement in scalar or vectorial outputs (Mendes et al., 2023, Guo et al., 16 Nov 2025).

• Correlation Coefficients (Pearson's $r$):

Used for population-level agreement and structural correspondence (e.g., Representational Similarity Analysis, RSA) in high-dimensional spaces (Asanuma et al., 19 May 2025, Zhou et al., 2018).

• Cronbach's $\alpha$ and Cohen's $\kappa$:

For inter-annotator agreement on dimension ratings or binary conversion (e.g., ≥4 vs. ≤3 for appraisals) (Troiano et al., 2022, Alisamir et al., 2022).

• Earth Mover's Distance (EMD) Loss:

Loss function for aligning categorical distributions sorted by VAD, penalizing large-rank misestimations in proxy learning from categorical corpora (Park et al., 2019).

• Clustering (V-Measure), CD-$r$ (circumplex distance alignment), and GWOT:

For geometric and relational evaluation of learned affect spaces and their alignment with psychological theory or human structure (Yamauchi et al., 10 Jan 2026, Asanuma et al., 19 May 2025).

Protocols often require cross-validation, leave-one-session-out design (especially in speech and video), label-preserving data partitioning, and systematic ablations (modality, architecture, or loss component) to assess statistical robustness and modality contribution.

5. Key Empirical Findings and Insights

Dimensional emotion analysis has revealed several robust empirical patterns:

• Dimension Universality and Compactness:

Compact (2D/3D) spaces capture most variance needed for both classification and regression across modalities, grounded by VA or VAD axes; empirical evidence shows diminishing returns beyond 3D in both accuracy and generalization (Kervadec et al., 2018, Zhou et al., 2018, Guo et al., 16 Nov 2025).

• Joint Dimensional–Categorical Training:

Multi-task representation jointly trained on both tasks yields improved emotion-category accuracy and often negligibly degrades regression, due to the one-to-many mapping from dimensions to discrete classes (Yicheng et al., 2019, Park et al., 2019).

• Alignment and Annotation Quality:

Reader-annotated VAD is more reliable than writer-based or single-perspective labeling; cross-perspective or joint inference (e.g., k-NN mapping) nearly saturates human agreement (Buechel et al., 2022).

• Temporal Alignment and Trace Correction:

Dynamic RNN-based alignment improves the inter-annotator agreement and feature-trace correlations, with substantial CCC gains on held-out test sets for arousal and valence (Alisamir et al., 2022).

• Multimodality and Feature Interplay:

Audio-visual fusion with cross-attention outperforms earlier concatenation or self-attention fusion, especially in video affect modeling (Praveen et al., 2021). Silence features in speech are especially diagnostic for arousal (Atmaja et al., 2020).

• Cross-Domain and Multilingual Robustness:

Pretrained models fine-tuned for VA regression generalize strongly across languages (zero-shot $ρ_v=0.818$, $ρ_a=0.618$ for Polish) and annotation styles (Mendes et al., 2023).

• Data-Efficient Transfer:

Training with order-sensitive loss (EMD) on categorical datasets allows accurate VAD prediction in data-scarce regimes, outperforming regression-from-scratch on limited gold-labeled data (Park et al., 2019).

• Interpretability–Performance Trade-off:

Geometric circular embedding (e.g., CircularCSE) yields robust, interpretable affect spaces but at the cost of discriminative power for fine-grained tasks (Yamauchi et al., 10 Jan 2026). Appraisal vectors add interpretability and performance on some emotion categories (Troiano et al., 2022).

6. Challenges, Limitations, and Future Directions

Despite substantial progress, key challenges remain:

• Annotation Uncertainty and Delays:

Inconsistent or biased dimensional traces inhibit reliable GS computation; alignment techniques must handle annotator-specific bias, reaction delay, and variable subjective response (Alisamir et al., 2022).

• Cultural, Contextual, and Multi-Emotion Complexity:

Corpora like SEWA (Hungarian) illustrate the minimum reliability threshold necessary for effective alignment and modeling; current models often struggle with context-dependent or ambiguous stimuli (Alisamir et al., 2022, Asanuma et al., 19 May 2025).

• Axis and Model Selection:

While VA and VAD suffice for many tasks, the added value of higher-dimensional or appraisal-based frameworks is task-dependent and demands further exploration, especially for subtle psychological distinctions (Troiano et al., 2022).

• Real-Time and Multimodal Expansion:

Bidirectional temporal alignment and multimodal integration are limited to batch scenarios; causal and online-capable systems represent an active research direction (Alisamir et al., 2022, Gao et al., 1 Feb 2026, Zhou et al., 2023).

• Fine-Grained Structural Alignment:

MLLMs capture high-dimensional category-level emotion structure but perform poorly on item-level (one-to-one) alignment with human raters; this reveals the need for architectures that integrate context, interoception, and causal reasoning (Asanuma et al., 19 May 2025).

• Explicit Interpretability in Deep Representations:

Implicit high-dimensional embeddings (as in DES, EmoVerse) are shown to be isotropic and informative, but extracting explicit V/A/D interpretation or compositional semantics remains a challenge (Guo et al., 16 Nov 2025).

Anticipated future work includes integrating physiological and self-supervised multimodal features into dynamic alignment models, extending appraisal-informed loss functions to multimodal data, developing real-time and context-aware interfaces, and advancing crowdsourced or hybrid annotation pipelines for scalable, reliable dimensional emotion corpora.

---

Selected References:

• "Dynamic Time-Alignment of Dimensional Annotations of Emotion using Recurrent Neural Networks" (Alisamir et al., 2022)
• "Dimensional Modeling of Emotions in Text with Appraisal Theories: Corpus Creation, Annotation Reliability, and Prediction" (Troiano et al., 2022)
• "The Effect of Silence Feature in Dimensional Speech Emotion Recognition" (Atmaja et al., 2020)
• "Are Emotions Arranged in a Circle? Geometric Analysis of Emotion Representations via Hyperspherical Contrastive Learning" (Yamauchi et al., 10 Jan 2026)
• "EEmo-Logic: A Unified Dataset and Multi-Stage Framework for Comprehensive Image-Evoked Emotion Assessment" (Gao et al., 1 Feb 2026)
• "EmoVerse: A MLLMs-Driven Emotion Representation Dataset for Interpretable Visual Emotion Analysis" (Guo et al., 16 Nov 2025)
• "EmoBank: Studying the Impact of Annotation Perspective and Representation Format on Dimensional Emotion Analysis" (Buechel et al., 2022)
• "The Manifold of Human Emotions" (Kim et al., 2013)