Multimodal emotion recognition in conversation (MERC) requires understanding complex interactions between verbal and non-verbal cues. However, most existing approaches fundamentally treat this as a direct input-output (multimodal cues-emotion labels) mapping problem, overlooking the causal reasoning that humans use when interpreting emotions. We propose rationale-guided learning (RGL), a novel framework that transforms MERC into a cognitively-inspired reasoning task. Based on dual-process theory, we decompose emotional reasoning into three facets: Intuitive (immediate perception, System 1), Contextual (situational analysis, System 2), and Integrative (synthesis of both). We leverage an MLLM offline to generate structured rationales, which are encoded as memories to guide model training via aligning internal representations with human-like reasoning patterns. Our final model operates without any MLLM overheads at inference time. Experimental results show that RGL achieves state-of-the-art performance on the IEMOCAP and MELD benchmarks. Further, for interpretation, we demonstrate that the model's internal features effectively retrieve semantically correct rationales for unseen test samples, validating its rationale reasoning capabilities.
When an LLM judge calls a peer review analytical and a human committee calls another review high quality, are they tracking the same thing? We argue they are not, and that the difference matters philosophically. We operationalise Kahneman's dual-process theory into a structured rubric for peer review and release Kahneman4Review, a benchmark of 3,563 rated reviews scored along nine theoretically motivated textual dimensions, eight bias diagnostics, and a continuous reasoning-quality score. Three findings bear on trustworthiness: decision tier is not detectably aligned with the rubric's text-grounded epistemic-quality proxy; public-showcase agentic reviews receive higher raw scores than pooled human reviews, but length and venue explain most of the gap and the samples are not paper-paired; and ICLR review-text diagnostics shift at the 2022--2023 transition, temporally coincident with widespread LLM availability but without identifying its cause. A matched function-probe pilot further shows that the rubric distinguishes textual probes designed to contrast genuine fault-finding with surface fluency. We argue that a trustworthy reliability benchmark for LLM judges must separate analytical form from epistemic function, and propose concrete design choices toward that goal. An interactive demo is available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/nuojohnchen/Kahneman4Review.
Tianxiang Fei, Mingyang Song, Mao Zheng +1cs.CL cs.AI
Long-term memory for an LLM agent is more than retrieving the right passage at the right time. Current memory systems collapse belief revision, causal coupling, and cross-domain abstraction into a single retrieval surface tuned for surface recall, and consequently struggle on implicit personalisation that requires reasoning over how a user has evolved. We propose DCPM, which reorganises agent memory along a cognitive capability hierarchy ascending from raw inputs and atomic facts, through diachronic belief trajectories and identity, to domain schemas, latent intentions and cross-domain patterns. The hierarchy is driven by two processes inheriting the architectural split of dual-process theory: a synchronous daytime writer (System1) that records belief revisions as doubly linked supersedes chains, and an asynchronous nighttime engine (System2) that induces schemas and intentions and sweeps for cross-domain collisions abstracted into higher-level core schemas. On LongMemEval, PersonaMem and PersonaMem-v2, enabling System2 contributes most where the benchmark rewards implicit cross-session inference (up to +5.20 on PersonaMem-v2) and least on span recall, matching the architectural prediction.