Vision-Enabled Large Language and Deep Learning Models for Image-Based Emotion Recognition

The significant advancements in the capabilities, reasoning, and efficiency of artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools and systems are evident. Some noteworthy examples of such tools include generative AI-based large language models (LLMs) such as generative pretrained transformer 3.5 (GPT 3.5), generative pretrained transformer 4 (GPT-4), and Bard. LLMs are versatile and effective for various tasks such as composing poetry, writing codes, generating essays, and solving puzzles. Thus far, LLMs can only effectively process text-based input. However, recent advancements have enabled them to handle multimodal inputs, such as text, images, and audio, making them highly general-purpose tools. LLMs have achieved decent performance in pattern recognition tasks (such as classification), therefore, there is a curiosity about whether general-purpose LLMs can perform comparable or even superior to specialized deep learning models (DLMs) trained specifically for a given task. In this study, we compared the performances of fine-tuned DLMs with those of general-purpose LLMs for image-based emotion recognition. We trained DLMs, namely, a convolutional neural network (CNN) (two CNN models were used: \(CNN_1\) and \(CNN_2\)), ResNet50, and VGG-16 models, using an image dataset for emotion recognition, and then tested their performance on another dataset. Subsequently, we subjected the same testing dataset to two vision-enabled LLMs (LLaVa and GPT-4). The \(CNN_2\) was found to be the superior model with an accuracy of 62% while VGG16 produced the lowest accuracy with 31%. In the category of LLMs, GPT-4 performed the best, with an accuracy of 55.81%. LLava LLM had a higher accuracy than \(CNN_1\) and VGG16 models. The other performance metrics such as precision, recall, and F1-score followed similar trends. However, GPT-4 performed the best with small datasets. The poor results observed in LLMs can be attributed to their general-purpose nature, which, despite extensive pretraining, may not fully capture the features required for specific tasks like emotion recognition in images as effectively as models fine-tuned for those tasks. The LLMs did not surpass specialized models but achieved comparable performance, making them a viable option for specific tasks without additional training. In addition, LLMs can be considered a good alternative when the available dataset is small.