Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

iSarcasm: A Dataset of Intended Sarcasm

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1911.03123 v2 pith:WJY3M4ZV submitted 2019-11-08 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords sarcasmdatasetintendedisarcasmauthorsdatasetsdetectionlabeled
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

We consider the distinction between intended and perceived sarcasm in the context of textual sarcasm detection. The former occurs when an utterance is sarcastic from the perspective of its author, while the latter occurs when the utterance is interpreted as sarcastic by the audience. We show the limitations of previous labelling methods in capturing intended sarcasm and introduce the iSarcasm dataset of tweets labeled for sarcasm directly by their authors. Examining the state-of-the-art sarcasm detection models on our dataset showed low performance compared to previously studied datasets, which indicates that these datasets might be biased or obvious and sarcasm could be a phenomenon under-studied computationally thus far. By providing the iSarcasm dataset, we aim to encourage future NLP research to develop methods for detecting sarcasm in text as intended by the authors of the text, not as labeled under assumptions that we demonstrate to be sub-optimal.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Can Third-parties Read Our Emotions?

    cs.CL 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Third-party emotion annotations, both human and LLM, show low to fair agreement with authors' self-reported emotions, with LLMs outperforming humans but still misaligning substantially.

Pith tools