Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly operate in multi-turn interactions that require maintaining latent conversational states, not only explicit facts. We study affective state as an implicit state inferred from sparse contextual cues that remain relevant after topic shifts, and ask whether LLMs expose internal attention signals for routing such evidence at inference time. Prior attention interventions rely on labeled in-domain head profiles and externally specified target spans, limiting transfer across affective-evidence distributions. We propose Self-targeted Internal Attention Boosting (SIAB), which localizes sparse affective heads via causal localization (in detail activation patching) on synthetic minimal pairs and boosts, at the answer position, the content tokens these heads already attend to; both edited heads and target tokens are derived from the model’s own behavior, enabling the same head set to be reused across tasks.We evaluate on ECC and GoEmotions across three LLMs and multiple prompting settings. Across settings, SIAB improves prompt-matched baselines by up to +10.3 macro-F1 on ECC and +5.5 on GoEmotions. Combined with PASTA-style external supervision, it achieves up to +13.84 accuracy points and +12.51 macro-F1 points, while mechanistic analyses trace the gains to sparse, emotion-enriched heads and show that layer proximity affects additivity.

Understanding human perception of nonsense words is helpful to devise product and character names that match their characteristics. Previous studies have suggested the usefulness of Large Language Models (LLMs) for estimating such human perception, but they did not focus on its emotional aspects. Hence, this study aims to elucidate the relationship of emotions evoked by nonsense words between humans and LLMs. Using a representative LLM, GPT-4, we reproduce the procedure of an existing study to analyze evoked emotions of humans for nonsense words. A positive correlation of 0.40 was found between the emotion intensity scores reproduced by GPT-4 and those manually annotated by humans. Although the correlation is not very high, this demonstrates that GPT-4 may agree with humans on emotional associations to nonsense words. Considering that the previous study reported that the correlation among human annotators was about 0.68 on average and that between a regression model trained on the annotations for real words and humans was 0.17, GPT-4’s agreement with humans is notably strong.