Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Robot Character Generation and Adaptive Human-Robot Interaction with Personality Shaping

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that combining Big Five personality traits, appraisal theory, and LLM-based memory lets a robot generate context-appropriate, non-deterministic emotions and actions that adapt to a user over time.

desk verdict A clearly described LLM-based robot personality framework whose central empirical claim is unsupported by an evaluation consisting of one author role-playing a scripted user. read the letter →

arxiv 2503.15518 v2 pith:DO5KHJIB submitted 2025-02-02 cs.HC

Cheng Tang , Chao Tang , Steven Gong , Thomas M. Kwok , Yue Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords human-robotinteractionrobotpersonalityBigFivetraitsappraisaltheorymemorylargelanguagemodelsemotionalintelligenceadaptivebehavior
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a robot's social behavior can be made adaptive and personal by giving it three psychological ingredients: a stable personality defined by the Big Five trait dimensions, an appraisal process that interprets the emotional meaning of a user's words and actions, and a memory that summarizes past interactions into lasting preferences. The authors argue that large language models can carry all three ingredients, replacing the pre-defined sentiment-to-action mappings used in earlier affective robots. If the framework works as claimed, robots meant for companionship, assistance, education, or collaboration would respond differently to the same situation depending on who they are and what they remember, rather than repeating fixed scripts. The paper supports the claim with scripted role-play interactions of one author playing a user across four scenarios, plus ablation tests that remove memory or emotional appraisal.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a single LLM that plays three roles at once: it initializes a parameterized personality from the Big Five dimensions (plus optional descriptive text or random seed), it appraises each user utterance and gesture for emotional relevance and valence following appraisal theory, and it reflects over episodic interaction logs to form long-term semantic memory of user preferences. These three outputs are fused in the robot's mentality layer to produce an emotion and an action from a defined physical action space, such as brewing tea, offering a flower, or dancing. The action selection is deliberately non-deterministic, which the authors tie to the perception of independent thought.

What would settle it

Run a blinded experiment with many participants, each interacting with all three personalities and ablated versions in randomized order, and have independent raters or standardized questionnaires measure interaction quality; the claim fails if user responses and ratings do not differ across conditions. A second falsifier is to set the LLM sampling temperature to zero and check whether the three personalities still produce distinct, non-deterministic behavior; if they collapse to near-identical outputs, the personality differences are an artifact of stochastic generation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that integrating Big Five personality parameterization, appraisal-theory evaluation of human behavior, and abstracted memory layers inside an LLM lets a robot generate emotions and select actions that are shaped by its character and its history with the user. In tests with three robots with distinct personalities, the same scenario produced different reasoning and different user emotional responses, which the authors read as evidence that personality influences interaction quality. Ablation tests removing memory or emotional intelligence produced literal, context-blind responses, such as mistaking a curved exam for social rejection or failing to detect sarcasm. The authors conclude that personality, appraisal, and memory significantly influence the quality and adaptability of human-robot interactions, and that the framework enables meaningful, personalized relationships.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that observing one author role-playing a user through four scripted scenarios is enough to prove that personality, memory, and emotional appraisal significantly influence interaction quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot with this framework can maintain a consistent character across days, because personality is parameterized once and reused in every appraisal.
  • Memory lets the robot interpret ambiguous remarks, like sarcasm or a reference to a past exam, without the user having to explain, as shown by the curved-exam example.
  • The ablation results imply that removing either memory or emotional appraisal produces literal, disengaging responses, so both components are necessary for the adaptive behavior the paper reports.
  • Different personality profiles lead to different user emotional reactions in identical scenarios, suggesting robot character can be tuned to the application: structured for workspaces, warm for caregiving, playful for entertainment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extending beyond the paper: the non-deterministic claim depends on stochastic LLM sampling; running the same pipeline with temperature zero would likely erase personality differences, so the contribution is as much about generation settings as about the architecture.
  • Extending beyond the paper: because the action space is fixed and defined by the robot's capabilities, the framework's apparent creativity is constrained to repertoire selection; a robot with a richer action space would likely show larger personality-driven differences.
  • Extending beyond the paper: a multi-participant, blinded study with quantitative ratings could turn the observed narrative differences into effect sizes; the current single-author role-play cannot rule out expectation effects.
  • Extending beyond the paper: long-run memory summaries could drift or reinforce biased interpretations of a user; monitoring how semantic memory changes over weeks of interaction would be a useful stress test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an LLM-based framework that combines Big Five personality traits, Appraisal Theory, and abstracted memory layers to generate robot characters and enable adaptive human-robot interaction. The system is described at a conceptual level, with personality initialization, memory reflection, and appraisal-based emotion/action selection. The authors evaluate the framework by having one author role-play a user ('Ella') in four scripted scenarios with three distinct robot personalities (Adam, Bella, Caleb), and they report ablation tests in which memory or emotional intelligence is removed. The paper claims that personality, appraisal, and memory 'significantly influence the quality and adaptability of human-robot interactions' based on narrative transcripts of these simulated interactions.

Significance. If rigorously validated, the framework would be a valuable integration of established psychological models with LLMs for socially interactive robots, potentially benefiting companion, assistive, and educational robotics. The conceptual architecture is coherent and builds on relevant prior work, and the authors are transparent about several limitations. However, the empirical evidence presented does not support the central claim: the evaluation is a single-author role-play with no quantitative metrics, no statistical tests, no independent raters, and no real users. The contribution is therefore best seen as a prototype description rather than a validated system.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V.A and Section VII.A] The evaluation consists entirely of one author role-playing the user 'Ella' in four scripted scenarios. No dependent variable for interaction quality is defined, no quantitative metrics are reported, and no statistical tests or independent raters are used. The abstract's claim that personality, appraisal, and memory 'significantly influence the quality and adaptability of human-robot interactions' is not supported by narrative transcripts alone. The paper's own Limitations section (VII.A) states that experiments were conducted in simulation and that user studies and physical-robot tests are 'planned future steps,' which directly contradicts the strength of the abstract's conclusion.
  2. [Section V.B and Appendix C/D] The observed behavioral differences are confounded by prompt compliance and expectation effects. The robot's behavior is generated by the same LLM that is configured with the experimental conditions (Table I), and the 'human' responses are generated by the same author who interprets the results. For example, Caleb's thought process in Appendix C explicitly states 'I can help by interrupting her stress cycle with food and humor,' which is the behavior specified by his personality prompt. More concretely, the ablation 'memoryless' robot in Appendix D, Scenario III, detects the sarcasm ('Your tone says otherwise'), contradicting the paper's claim in Section V.B.2 that the memoryless robot 'fails to make the connection and instead asks Ella for clarification.' This internal inconsistency undermines the validity of the ablation conclusions.
  3. [Section IV] The manuscript provides only a high-level description of the framework, lacking the implementation details needed for replication or independent assessment. The specific LLM used, the prompt templates, sampling parameters, memory storage and retrieval mechanisms, and the precise operationalization of Appraisal Theory are not specified. Section IV.C describes appraisal only conceptually, and no pseudocode, algorithm, or system diagram with concrete data flow is provided. Without these details, the claimed 'methodology' cannot be evaluated, reproduced, or distinguished from a simple prompt-engineering exercise.
  4. [Section V.B.2] The ablation tests are presented as evidence for the 'significance' of memory and emotional intelligence, but they report only qualitative narratives. Section V.B.2 makes claims such as 'the absence of memory can lead to misunderstandings and even conflicts' without any coding scheme, inter-rater reliability, or quantitative comparison across conditions. The abstract's statement that 'the significance of the individual components, as well as their integration, was further validated through ablation tests' is therefore not justified by the presented evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II.C] There is a typo: 'Atlhough' should be 'Although'.
  2. [Section V.B.1] The phrase 'an en energy bar' should be 'an energy bar'.
  3. [Table I] The column header 'Consciousness' should be 'Conscientiousness' to match the Big Five terminology used elsewhere.
  4. [Appendix B-D] The formatting of Ella's stage directions is inconsistent: some use square brackets (e.g., '[Looks concerned]') while others use parentheses (e.g., '(Looks happier)'). This should be unified.
  5. [Section V.B] The paper states that Scenario III and IV are used to showcase the ablation tests, but Section V.B.2 discusses both scenarios for each ablation; consider clarifying which scenario corresponds to which ablation claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework is a constructive integration of external psychological components, and the weak empirical support is a validity limitation, not a logical circularity.

full rationale

The paper's construction chain is not circular: Big Five parameters, appraisal-theory evaluations, and memory summaries enter as exogenous inputs to the LLM, while the robot's generated emotions and actions are outputs; no equation or fitted parameter is reused as the thing being predicted. The central claim that personality, appraisal, and memory 'significantly influence the quality and adaptability of human-robot interactions' is an empirical generalization, and the supporting evidence is admittedly thin: Section V.A says 'we recorded and showcased the entire interaction of one author role-playing in a given context scenario,' and Section VII.A concedes 'Current experiments have been conducted in simulation environments... conducting experiments with a broader range of human subjects are planned future steps.' That means the observed behavioral differences may largely reflect prompt compliance and the author's role-played responses rather than measured interaction quality, but this is a construct-validity and generalizability threat, not a circular derivation: the experimental conditions (personality settings, memory on/off, emotional-intelligence on/off) are not defined in terms of the outcomes they are supposed to explain. The framework itself is a self-contained integration of external, non-author references (Big Five, appraisal theory, and [22] for memory), with no load-bearing self-citation chain and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors. Hence no circular step meets the bar of 'equivalent to its inputs by construction.'

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on assumptions that Big Five traits can parameterize robot personality, that appraisal theory can be implemented via LLM text evaluation, and that LLM-generated narratives faithfully represent the effects of these components. The personality trait settings in Table I are hand-picked experimental variables. The system introduces no new physical entities.

free parameters (1)
  • Personality trait levels for Adam, Bella, Caleb = Openness Low/Medium/High; Conscientiousness Medium-high/Medium-high/Medium-low; Extraversion Medium-low/Medium/High…
    Hand-selected from Table I to create distinct robot characters. These are the independent variables of the qualitative demonstration, not fitted to data.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Big Five framework adequately parameterizes robot personality for human-robot interaction.
    Section IV.A assumes the five traits and their levels produce consistent, distinct robot behavior without empirical validation of this mapping.
  • domain assumption Appraisal theory can be operationalized by LLM-based evaluation of human language and context.
    Section IV.C describes appraisal as an LLM judgment of relevance, valence, and impact, but no formal appraisal model or benchmark is provided.
  • domain assumption LLM outputs reliably simulate personality-consistent thought processes and actions.
    The entire system depends on the LLM generating coherent responses that reflect the assigned personality and memory; no reliability or consistency checks are reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robot Character Generation and Adaptive Human-Robot Interaction with Personality Shaping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DO5KHJIB

@misc{pith2026250315518,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robot Character Generation and Adaptive Human-Robot Interaction with Personality Shaping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DO5KHJIB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2503.15518}
}
read the original abstract

We present a novel framework for designing emotionally agile robots with dynamic personalities and memory-based learning, with the aim of performing adaptive and non-deterministic interactions with humans while conforming to shared social understanding. While existing work has largely focused on emotion recognition and static response systems, many approaches rely on sentiment analysis and action mapping frameworks that are pre-defined with limited dimensionality and fixed configurations, lacking the flexibility of dynamic personality traits and memory-enabled adaptation. Other systems are often restricted to limited modes of expression and fail to develop a causal relationship between human behavior and the robot's proactive physical actions, resulting in constrained adaptability and reduced responsiveness in complex, dynamic interactions. Our methodology integrates the Big Five Personality Traits, Appraisal Theory, and abstracted memory layers through Large Language Models (LLMs). The LLM generates a parameterized robot personality based on the Big Five, processes human language and sentiments, evaluates human behavior using Appraisal Theory, and generates emotions and selects appropriate actions adapted by historical context over time. We validated the framework by testing three robots with distinct personalities in identical background contexts and found that personality, appraisal, and memory influence the adaptability of human-robot interactions. The impact of the individual components was further validated through ablation tests. We conclude that this system enables robots to engage in meaningful and personalized interactions with users, and holds significant potential for applications in domains such as pet robots, assistive robots, educational robots, and collaborative functional robots, where cultivating tailored relationships and enriching user experiences are essential.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2503.15518 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the framework. Human influences (red) shape the robot’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. How each component influences the robot’s response. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Scenario I: Day 1, Dinner Time – Ella Expresses Frustration About Schoolwork [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scenario II: Day 2, Morning – Ella Leaving for Her Exam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual Examples of Robot Actions: (a) Making Tea, (b) Holding a Flower, (c) Sway and Twirl. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scenario III: Day 2, Afternoon – Ella Returns Concerned After Her Exam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scenario IV: Day 10, Afternoon – Ella Returns Excited After the Exam Was Curved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Personality-and memory-based frame- work for emotionally intelligent agents,

    A. Nardelli, G. Maccagni, F. Minutoli, A. Sgorbissa, and C. T. Recchiuto, “Personality-and memory-based frame- work for emotionally intelligent agents,” in 2024 33rd IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (ROMAN). IEEE, 2024, pp. 769–776

    work page 2024

  2. [38]

    Nadine: An llm-driven intelligent social robot with affective capabilities and human-like memory,

    H. Kang, M. B. Moussa, and N. Magnenat-Thalmann, “Nadine: An llm-driven intelligent social robot with affective capabilities and human-like memory,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20189, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Literature review of mobile robots for manufacturing,

    M. Schneier, M. Schneier, and R. Bostelman, “Literature review of mobile robots for manufacturing,” National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Tech. Rep., 2015

    work page 2015

  4. [2]

    Robot skills for manufacturing: From concept to industrial deployment,

    M. R. Pedersen, L. Nalpantidis, R. S. Andersen, C. Schou, S. Bøgh, V . Kr ¨uger, and O. Madsen, “Robot skills for manufacturing: From concept to industrial deployment,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manu- facturing, vol. 37, pp. 282–291, 2016

    work page 2016

  5. [3]

    Human–robot collaboration in manufacturing applications: A review,

    E. Matheson, R. Minto, E. G. Zampieri, M. Faccio, and G. Rosati, “Human–robot collaboration in manufacturing applications: A review,” Robotics, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 100, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [4]

    Robots in agriculture: prospects, impacts, ethics, and policy,

    R. Sparrow and M. Howard, “Robots in agriculture: prospects, impacts, ethics, and policy,” precision agri- culture, vol. 22, pp. 818–833, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [5]

    Robots in agriculture: State of art and practical experi- ences,

    J. J. Rold ´an, J. del Cerro, D. Garz ´on-Ramos, P. Garcia- Aunon, M. Garz ´on, J. De Le ´on, and A. Barrientos, “Robots in agriculture: State of art and practical experi- ences,” Service robots, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 67–90, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [6]

    An overview of cooperative robotics in agriculture,

    C. Lytridis, V . G. Kaburlasos, T. Pachidis, M. Manios, E. Vrochidou, T. Kalampokas, and S. Chatzistamatis, “An overview of cooperative robotics in agriculture,” Agronomy, vol. 11, no. 9, p. 1818, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 50 references
  1. [7]

    Growth in e-commerce boosts innovation in the warehouse robot market,

    R. Bogue, “Growth in e-commerce boosts innovation in the warehouse robot market,” Industrial Robot: An International Journal, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 583–587, 2016

    2016

  2. [8]

    Relationship quality in customer-service robot interactions in industry 5.0: An analysis of value recipes,

    S. K. Roy, G. Singh, R. L. Gruner, B. L. Dey, S. Shab- nam, S. S. Muhammad, and M. Quaddus, “Relationship quality in customer-service robot interactions in industry 5.0: An analysis of value recipes,” Information Systems Frontiers, pp. 1–20, 2023

    2023

  3. [9]

    Fabric: A framework for the design and evaluation of collaborative robots with extended human adaptation,

    O. C. G ¨or¨ur, B. Rosman, F. Sivrikaya, and S. Albayrak, “Fabric: A framework for the design and evaluation of collaborative robots with extended human adaptation,” ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 1–54, 2023

    2023

  4. [10]

    Effects of anticipatory action on human-robot teamwork efficiency, fluency, and perception of team,

    G. Hoffman and C. Breazeal, “Effects of anticipatory action on human-robot teamwork efficiency, fluency, and perception of team,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on Human-robot interaction , 2007, pp. 1–8

    2007

  5. [11]

    How to feel about emotionalized artificial intelligence? when robot pets, holograms, and chatbots become affective partners,

    E. Weber-Guskar, “How to feel about emotionalized artificial intelligence? when robot pets, holograms, and chatbots become affective partners,” Ethics and Informa- tion Technology, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 601–610, 2021

    2021

  6. [12]

    Robot social emotional development through memory retrieval,

    H.-D. Bui, T. L. Q. Dang, and N. Y . Chong, “Robot social emotional development through memory retrieval,” in 2019 7th International Conference on Robot Intelligence Technology and Applications (RiTA) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 46–51

    2019

  7. [13]

    Emotional intelligence in robotics: A scoping review,

    S. Marcos-Pablos and F. J. Garc ´ıa-Pe˜nalvo, “Emotional intelligence in robotics: A scoping review,” in New Trends in Disruptive Technologies, Tech Ethics and Arti- ficial Intelligence: The DITTET Collection 1 . Springer, 2022, pp. 66–75

    2022

  8. [14]

    Affective robotics for wellbe- ing: A scoping review,

    M. Spitale and H. Gunes, “Affective robotics for wellbe- ing: A scoping review,” in 2022 10th International con- ference on affective computing and intelligent interaction workshops and demos (ACIIW) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–8

    2022

  9. [15]

    Artificial emotional intelligence in socially assistive robots for older adults: a pilot study,

    H. Abdollahi, M. H. Mahoor, R. Zandie, J. Siewierski, and S. H. Qualls, “Artificial emotional intelligence in socially assistive robots for older adults: a pilot study,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing , vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 2020–2032, 2022

    2020

  10. [16]

    The use of robotic pets by community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review,

    S. Guerra, C. Rosa, L. Sousa, A. Neves, G. Pestana, M. J. Hern ´andez, R. Losada, S. Pires, and O. Ribeiro, “The use of robotic pets by community-dwelling older adults: a scoping review,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1481–1492, 2022

    2022

  11. [17]

    Validation of the five- factor model of personality across instruments and ob- servers

    R. R. McCrae and P. T. Costa, “Validation of the five- factor model of personality across instruments and ob- servers.” Journal of personality and social psychology , vol. 52, no. 1, p. 81, 1987

    1987

  12. [18]

    Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings,

    E. C. Tupes and R. E. Christal, “Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings,” Journal of personality , vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 225–251, 1992

    1992

  13. [19]

    Emotion and adap- tation,

    C. A. Smith, R. S. Lazarus et al. , “Emotion and adap- tation,” Handbook of personality: Theory and research , vol. 21, pp. 609–637, 1990

    1990

  14. [20]

    Appraisal theory,

    I. J. Roseman and C. A. Smith, “Appraisal theory,” Ap- praisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research, pp. 3–19, 2001

    2001

  15. [21]

    Appraisal processes in emotion,

    P. C. Ellsworth and K. R. Scherer, “Appraisal processes in emotion,” 2003

    2003

  16. [22]

    Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior,

    J. S. Park, J. O’Brien, C. J. Cai, M. R. Morris, P. Liang, and M. S. Bernstein, “Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior,” in Proceedings of the 36th annual acm symposium on user interface software and technology, 2023, pp. 1–22

    2023

  17. [23]

    How the person- ality and memory of a robot can influence user modeling in human-robot interaction,

    B. Matcovich, C. Gena, and F. Vernero, “How the person- ality and memory of a robot can influence user modeling in human-robot interaction,” in Adjunct Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, 2024, pp. 136–141

    2024

  18. [24]

    A systematic review of the personality of robot: Mapping its conceptualiza- tion, operationalization, contextualization and effects,

    Y . Mou, C. Shi, T. Shen, and K. Xu, “A systematic review of the personality of robot: Mapping its conceptualiza- tion, operationalization, contextualization and effects,” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction , vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 591–605, 2020

    2020

  19. [25]

    Personality-based consistent robot behavior,

    Q. Sajid, “Personality-based consistent robot behavior,” in 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 2016, pp. 635– 636

    2016

  20. [27]

    Survey of emotions in human–robot interactions: Perspectives from robotic psychology on 20 years of research,

    R. Stock-Homburg, “Survey of emotions in human–robot interactions: Perspectives from robotic psychology on 20 years of research,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 389–411, 2022

    2022

  21. [28]

    Emotion recog- nition for human-robot interaction: Recent advances and future perspectives,

    M. Spezialetti, G. Placidi, and S. Rossi, “Emotion recog- nition for human-robot interaction: Recent advances and future perspectives,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 7, p. 532279, 2020

    2020

  22. [29]

    Emotional intelligence of large language models,

    X. Wang, X. Li, Z. Yin, Y . Wu, and J. Liu, “Emotional intelligence of large language models,” Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, vol. 17, p. 18344909231213958, 2023

    2023

  23. [30]

    Emia: emotion model for intelli- gent agent,

    S. Jain and K. Asawa, “Emia: emotion model for intelli- gent agent,” Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 449–465, 2015

    2015

  24. [31]

    e-genia3 an agentspeak extension for empathic agents,

    J. Taverner, E. Vivancos, and V . Botti, “e-genia3 an agentspeak extension for empathic agents,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.00737, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Improv- ing humanness of virtual agents and users’ cooperation through emotions,

    M. Ghafurian, N. Budnarain, and J. Hoey, “Improv- ing humanness of virtual agents and users’ cooperation through emotions,” IEEE Transactions on Affective Com- puting, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1461–1471, 2021

    2021

  26. [33]

    Both matter: Enhancing the emo- tional intelligence of large language models without compromising the general intelligence,

    W. Zhao, Z. Li, S. Wang, Y . Wang, Y . Hu, Y . Zhao, C. Wei, and B. Qin, “Both matter: Enhancing the emo- tional intelligence of large language models without compromising the general intelligence,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10073, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Building long- term relationships with virtual and robotic characters: the role of remembering,

    Z. Kasap and N. Magnenat-Thalmann, “Building long- term relationships with virtual and robotic characters: the role of remembering,” The Visual Computer, vol. 28, pp. 87–97, 2012

    2012

  28. [35]

    Affectaura: an intelligent system for emotional memory,

    D. McDuff, A. Karlson, A. Kapoor, A. Roseway, and M. Czerwinski, “Affectaura: an intelligent system for emotional memory,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI con- ference on human factors in computing systems , 2012, pp. 849–858

    2012

  29. [36]

    An emotion understanding framework for intelligent agents based on episodic and semantic memories,

    M. Kazemifard, N. Ghasem-Aghaee, B. L. Koenig, and T. I. ¨Oren, “An emotion understanding framework for intelligent agents based on episodic and semantic memories,” Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems , vol. 28, pp. 126–153, 2014

    2014

  30. [37]

    Flame—fuzzy logic adaptive model of emotions,

    M. S. El-Nasr, J. Yen, and T. R. Ioerger, “Flame—fuzzy logic adaptive model of emotions,” Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent systems , vol. 3, pp. 219–257, 2000

    2000

  31. [39]

    Towards episodic memory-based long-term affective interaction with a human-like robot,

    Z. Kasap and N. Magnenat-Thalmann, “Towards episodic memory-based long-term affective interaction with a human-like robot,” in 19th International Symposium in Robot and Human Interactive Communication . IEEE, 2010, pp. 452–457

    2010

  32. [40]

    Episodic memory system of affective agent with emotion for long- term human-robot interaction,

    H.-G. Kim, J.-Y . Yang, and D.-S. Kwon, “Episodic memory system of affective agent with emotion for long- term human-robot interaction,” in 2013 10th Interna- tional Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence (URAI). IEEE, 2013, pp. 720–722

    2013

  33. [41]

    Deep episodic memory: Encoding, recalling, and predicting episodic experiences for robot action ex- ecution,

    J. Rothfuss, F. Ferreira, E. E. Aksoy, Y . Zhou, and T. Asfour, “Deep episodic memory: Encoding, recalling, and predicting episodic experiences for robot action ex- ecution,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 4007–4014, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Research on asso- ciative memory models of emotional robots,

    W. Yi, W. Zhi-Liang, and W. Wei, “Research on asso- ciative memory models of emotional robots,” Advances in Mechanical Engineering , vol. 6, p. 208153, 2014

    2014

  35. [43]

    Personality af- fected robotic emotional model with associative memory for human-robot interaction,

    N. Masuyama, C. K. Loo, and M. Seera, “Personality af- fected robotic emotional model with associative memory for human-robot interaction,” Neurocomputing, vol. 272, pp. 213–225, 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    Elements of episodic memory,

    E. Tulving, “Elements of episodic memory,” 1983

    1983

  37. [45]

    Episodic memory: From mind to brain,

    ——, “Episodic memory: From mind to brain,” Annual review of psychology, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 1–25, 2002

    2002

  38. [46]

    Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities

    J. J. Hopfield, “Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities.” Pro- ceedings of the national academy of sciences , vol. 79, no. 8, pp. 2554–2558, 1982

    1982

  39. [47]

    C. M. Bishop and N. M. Nasrabadi, Pattern recognition and machine learning . Springer, 2006, vol. 4, no. 4

    2006

  40. [48]

    Memo- rybank: Enhancing large language models with long-term memory,

    W. Zhong, L. Guo, Q. Gao, H. Ye, and Y . Wang, “Memo- rybank: Enhancing large language models with long-term memory,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 17, 2024, pp. 19 724– 19 731

    2024

  41. [49]

    A com- prehensive overview of large language models,

    H. Naveed, A. U. Khan, S. Qiu, M. Saqib, S. Anwar, M. Usman, N. Akhtar, N. Barnes, and A. Mian, “A com- prehensive overview of large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.06435, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    A survey on evaluation of large language models,

    Y . Chang, X. Wang, J. Wang, Y . Wu, L. Yang, K. Zhu, H. Chen, X. Yi, C. Wang, Y . Wang et al., “A survey on evaluation of large language models,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1–45, 2024. APPENDIX A. Full Interactions with Robot A...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.