The most prominent subtask in emotion analysis is emotion classification; to assign a category to a textual unit, for instance a social media post. Many research questions from the social sciences do, however, not only require the detection of the emotion of an author of a post but to understand who is ascribed an emotion in text. This task is tackled by emotion role labeling which aims at extracting who is described in text to experience an emotion, why, and towards whom. This could, however, be considered overly sophisticated if the main question to answer is who feels which emotion. A targeted approach for such setup is to classify emotion experiencer mentions (aka "emoters") regarding the emotion they presumably perceive. This task is similar to named entity recognition of person names with the difference that not every mentioned entity name is an emoter. While, very recently, data with emoter annotations has been made available, no experiments have yet been performed to detect such mentions. With this paper, we provide baseline experiments to understand how challenging the task is. We further evaluate the impact on experiencer-specific emotion categorization and appraisal detection in a pipeline, when gold mentions are not available. We show that experiencer detection in text is a challenging task, with a precision of .82 and a recall of .56 (F1 =.66). These results motivate future work of jointly modeling emoter spans and emotion/appraisal predictions.

As recommender systems become increasingly sophisticated and complex, they often suffer from lack of fairness and transparency. Providing robust and unbiased explanations for recommendations has been drawing more and more attention as it can help address these issues and improve trustworthiness and informativeness of recommender systems. However, despite the fact that such explanations are generated for humans who respond more strongly to messages with appropriate emotions, there is a lack of consideration for emotions when generating explanations for recommendations. Current explanation generation models are found to exaggerate certain emotions without accurately capturing the underlying tone or the meaning. In this paper, we propose a novel method based on a multi-head transformer, called Emotion-aware Transformer for Explainable Recommendation (EmoTER), to generate more robust, fair, and emotion-enhanced explanations. To measure the linguistic quality and emotion fairness of the generated explanations, we adopt both automatic text metrics and human perceptions for evaluation. Experiments on three widely-used benchmark datasets with multiple evaluation metrics demonstrate that EmoTER consistently outperforms the existing state-of-the-art explanation generation models in terms of text quality, explainability, and consideration for fairness to emotion distribution. Implementation of EmoTER will be released as an open-source toolkit to support further research.

The recent rapid advancements in artificial intelligence research and deployment have sparked more discussion about the potential ramifications of socially- and emotionally-intelligent AI. The question is not if research can produce such affectively-aware AI, but when it will. What will it mean for society when machines -- and the corporations and governments they serve -- can "read" people's minds and emotions? What should developers and operators of such AI do, and what should they not do? The goal of this article is to pre-empt some of the potential implications of these developments, and propose a set of guidelines for evaluating the (moral and) ethical consequences of affectively-aware AI, in order to guide researchers, industry professionals, and policy-makers. We propose a multi-stakeholder analysis framework that separates the ethical responsibilities of AI Developers vis-\`a-vis the entities that deploy such AI -- which we term Operators. Our analysis produces two pillars that clarify the responsibilities of each of these stakeholders: Provable Beneficence, which rests on proving the effectiveness of the AI, and Responsible Stewardship, which governs responsible collection, use, and storage of data and the decisions made from such data. We end with recommendations for researchers, developers, operators, as well as regulators and law-makers.