Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

TEMPER: Testing Emotional Perturbation in Quantitative Reasoning

Atahan Dokme, Benjamin Reichman, Larry Heck

Published

Apr 9, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

5/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

45% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Aug 12, 2026

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
5/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Abstract

Large language models are trained and evaluated on quantitative reasoning tasks written in clean, emotionally neutral language. However, real-world queries are often wrapped in frustration, urgency or enthusiasm. Does emotional framing alone degrade reasoning when all numerical content is preserved? To investigate this, a controlled emotion translation framework is developed that rewrites problems into emotional variants while preserving all quantities and relationships. Using this framework, Temper-5400 (5,400 semantically verified emotion-neutral pairs) is constructed across GSM8K, MultiArith, and ARC-Challenge, and evaluated on eighteen models (1B to frontier scale). Two core results emerge: First, emotional framing reduces accuracy by 2-10 percentage points even though all numerical content is preserved. Second, neutralizing emotional variants recovers most of the lost performance, showing both that the degradation is tied to emotional style rather than content corruption and that neutralization can serve as a lightweight inference-time mitigation. Non-emotional paraphrases cause no such degradation, implicating emotional content rather than surface-level changes. Beyond emotion specifically, the benchmark construction procedure offers a controllable instrument for stylistic translation and robustness evaluation.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large language models are trained and evaluated on quantitative reasoning tasks written in clean, emotionally neutral language."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Large language models are trained and evaluated on quantitative reasoning tasks written in clean, emotionally neutral language."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large language models are trained and evaluated on quantitative reasoning tasks written in clean, emotionally neutral language."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

GSM8K, ARC Challenge

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"Using this framework, Temper-5400 (5,400 semantically verified emotion-neutral pairs) is constructed across GSM8K, MultiArith, and ARC-Challenge, and evaluated on eighteen models (1B to frontier scale)."

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Two core results emerge: First, emotional framing reduces accuracy by 2-10 percentage points even though all numerical content is preserved."

Benchmarks and datasets

GSM8KARC-Challenge

Reported metrics

accuracy
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
Math, Multilingual
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Large language models are trained and evaluated on quantitative reasoning tasks written in clean, emotionally neutral language.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Large language models are trained and evaluated on quantitative reasoning tasks written in clean, emotionally neutral language.
  • However, real-world queries are often wrapped in frustration, urgency or enthusiasm.
  • Does emotional framing alone degrade reasoning when all numerical content is preserved?

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against others mentioning GSM8K.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • Two core results emerge: First, emotional framing reduces accuracy by 2-10 percentage points even though all numerical content is preserved.
  • Beyond emotion specifically, the benchmark construction procedure offers a controllable instrument for stylistic translation and robustness evaluation.

Why it matters for eval

  • Beyond emotion specifically, the benchmark construction procedure offers a controllable instrument for stylistic translation and robustness evaluation.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: GSM8K, ARC-Challenge

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy