Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 78 references

Cultural Bias Matters: A Cross-Cultural Benchmark Dataset and Sentiment-Enriched Model for Understanding Multimodal Metaphors

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new 8,461-pair bilingual dataset exposes measurable cultural bias in multimodal metaphor processing, and a sentiment-enriched model beats all 18 baselines on both languages.

desk verdict Valuable new bilingual multimodal metaphor dataset, but the cultural-bias claim is undermined by asymmetric data collection and an underspecified sentiment feature. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06987 v1 pith:OCXWEJPJ submitted 2025-06-08 cs.CL

Senqi Yang , Dongyu Zhang , Jing Ren , Ziqi Xu , Xiuzhen Zhang , Yiliao Song , Hongfei Lin , Feng Xia This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords multimodalmetaphorcross-culturalbiasbenchmarkdatasetsentimentembeddingsdetectionanalysisChinese-Englishadvertisingtext-imageunderstanding
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

Metaphors vary across cultures, yet most automatic metaphor processing is trained on English data. This paper introduces MultiMM, a benchmark of 8,461 Chinese and English text-image advertisement pairs annotated for metaphor occurrence, source and target domains, and sentiment, making cross-cultural multimodal metaphor understanding measurable. It also proposes SEMD, a model that adds sentiment embeddings to text and image features and fuses them in a cascade. SEMD outperforms all 18 textual, visual, and multimodal baselines, reaching F1 scores of 80.16% and 77.79% for metaphor detection and 75.69% and 70.51% for sentiment analysis in English and Chinese. If the results hold, sentiment information is a transferable signal for metaphor understanding across cultures, and culturally skewed training data can mislead NLP progress.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the annotation model $(Occurrence, Target, Source, SentimentCategory)$ applied to each text-image pair, which turns cultural metaphor variation into labeled training and evaluation data. On the modeling side, the engine is SEMD's three-branch fusion: BERT encodes text and sentiment, ViT encodes the image, and a cascading fusion layer concatenates the 768-dimensional vectors $I_i$, $T_i$, and $S_i$ before a feed-forward network and sigmoid classifier. The sentiment branch is the novel ingredient, and the ablation study shows that including it with concatenation gives the largest gains.

What would settle it

Take a matched-sample test: collect English ads with the same Baidu keyword procedure used for Chinese and Chinese ads from the same public advertisement source used for English, then rerun SEMD and the baselines; if the English-Chinese F1 differences disappear or reverse, the study's cultural-bias conclusion is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that cultural background measurably changes how multimodal metaphors work, and that a model can exploit this by adding sentiment as a universal auxiliary channel. The evidence is MultiMM: 4,397 Chinese and 4,064 English text-image advertisement pairs with annotations for metaphor occurrence, target and source domain vocabulary (including verbalized visual domains), and sentiment category, with moderate to near-perfect inter-annotator agreement. On this dataset, SEMD, which concatenates text, image, and sentiment features and fuses them in a cascade, beats every baseline on both tasks in both languages. The paper further argues that the data show culture-specific source domains and sentiment distributions, and that direct Chinese-English translation degrades metaphor detection, consistent with metaphors carrying culture-bound meaning.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that differences between the Chinese and English subsets measure cultural bias, even though the two subsets were collected by different procedures—Chinese ads through keyword search on Baidu and English ads from an existing cleaned advertisement dataset—so sampling or selection differences could also explain part of the gap.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • English-only metaphor benchmarks likely overstate how well models understand metaphor in other cultures; MultiMM provides a way to measure and close that gap.
  • Sentiment embeddings act as a cross-cultural bridge: adding them improves metaphor detection even though sentiment is not annotated for that purpose.
  • Direct translation between Chinese and English degrades metaphor detection, so cross-lingual transfer for figurative language needs culturally aware representations, not just machine translation.
  • The strongest baselines are multimodal graph or caption-augmented models, positioning visual grounding as necessary for metaphor understanding.
  • MultiMM supplies a shared testbed for future cross-cultural multilingual metaphor systems to compare against.
  • The dataset and code are public, so the benchmark can be reused directly by other researchers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same sentiment-enrichment trick could be tested on text-only metaphor detection, where sentiment embeddings might also improve cross-lingual transfer without images.
  • A human-pairing study could use MultiMM to ask whether bicultural annotators, not just models, also diverge in metaphor detection, which would separate cultural cognition from model bias.
  • The dataset could serve as pretraining or evaluation data for multimodal LLMs aimed at Chinese-English advertising, where current large models struggle on both tasks.
  • Matched-sampling extensions of MultiMM to other genres such as social media or news would reveal whether the observed cultural patterns are specific to advertising or general to multimodal metaphor.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MultiMM, a new dataset of 8,461 Chinese and English text-image advertisement pairs with annotations for metaphor occurrence, source/target domains, and sentiment; and SEMD, a model that fuses text, image, and sentiment features. Experiments compare SEMD with 18 baselines on metaphor detection and sentiment analysis, claiming that SEMD outperforms baselines and that observed distributional and performance differences between Chinese and English subsets demonstrate cultural bias in multimodal metaphor processing. The dataset and code are released.

Significance. If the cross-cultural comparisons are valid, MultiMM would be a valuable resource: it is, to my knowledge, the first bilingual/bicultural multimodal metaphor benchmark for advertising; the annotation procedure is documented and inter-annotator agreement (Fleiss kappa 0.66-0.82) is reasonable; and the release of data and code supports reproducibility. The SEMD results are suggestive but their interpretation hinges on the data-collection comparability and the provenance of the sentiment feature.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1] The two subsets are assembled through different pipelines, so the paper's central cross-cultural comparisons are confounded. The Chinese subset (4,397 samples) is collected by native researchers searching Baidu with metaphor-related keywords and Master Metaphor List terms, while the English subset (4,064 samples) is drawn from an existing advertisement dataset (Ye et al., 2021) and then cleaned by removing duplicates, non-advertisements, blurry images, and small images. Consequently, the distributional differences in source-domain vocabulary (Figure 3), sentiment balance (Figure 4), and the performance gaps in Section 6.3 could reflect collection artifacts (e.g., keyword-driven retrieval over-sampling metaphorically rich Chinese content, and the English source having a different genre/topic mix) rather than cultural differences. The Limitations section only notes domain and language coverage and does not address this asymmetry. A matched-collection design (same search/selection procedure in both languages) or a matched-category analysis (e.g., comparing only paired product/service and sentiment categories) is needed to support the claim that cultural bias, rather than pipeline differences, drives the observed asymmetries.
  2. [§5, Figure 6, Table 3] The provenance of the sentiment feature Si used in metaphor detection is not specified. In Section 5, metaphor detection concatenates image, text, and sentiment features (PMeta = Sigmoid(Fusion(concat(I_i, T_i, S_i)))), while sentiment analysis uses only I_i and T_i. If S_i is derived from the gold sentiment annotations, which were produced in the same annotation session as the metaphor-occurrence labels, then SEMD has access to label information at test time and is not comparable to the 18 baselines; the ablation in Table 3 would then measure label leakage rather than the value of sentiment information. The paper should state explicitly whether S_i comes from an independent sentiment classifier (and if so, how it is trained and whether it is frozen) or from gold labels. If it comes from gold labels, the metaphor-detection experiments should be rerun with predicted sentiment features or without sentiment features.
  3. [§4.2, §6.6, §7] Several interpretive claims go beyond what the data can support. For example, Section 4.2 states that 'the complete absence of negative sentiment in English metaphorical advertisements may reflect cultural taboos,' but Figure 4 reports 0.69% negative in English metaphorical advertisements, not complete absence, and the near-zero count could be a byproduct of the English pipeline's genre mix or selection. Similarly, Section 6.6 attributes the lower Chinese metaphor-detection accuracy to Chinese metaphors being 'more subtle' and English metaphors 'more straightforward,' without controlling for annotator language, text length (average 33 vs. 15 words in Table 1), or collection differences. These claims should be rephrased as hypotheses or supported by a matched analysis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 6] In the SEMD row of the Chinese sentiment analysis results, '73.4070.66 70.51' appears to be missing a space between the accuracy and precision values; please fix the formatting.
  2. [§6.6] The sentence 'we also provides a case study' should be 'we also provide a case study'; please correct this grammatical error.
  3. [§3.1] The cleaning step 'removing images that are blurry or smaller than 350 × 350 pixels' is applied only to the English subset; state whether an analogous size/quality filter was applied to the Chinese subset and, if not, why.
  4. [§2.2] The claim that sentiment information is a universally recognized feature for multimodal metaphor understanding would benefit from a few more explicit citations to prior work on sentiment and metaphor beyond Mohammad et al. (2016).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the central cultural-bias claim is threatened by asymmetric data collection, but that is a confound rather than a circularity.

full rationale

This is an empirical resource and benchmark paper, not a formal derivation. SEMD is evaluated on held-out test splits against 18 baselines, so its reported F1 gains are measured outcomes rather than construction artifacts. The self-citations to MultiMET (Zhang et al., 2021) and MultiCMET (Zhang et al., 2023) concern annotation criteria and related-work positioning; the annotation process also relies on an external method (Šorm and Steen, 2018) and is validated by Fleiss' kappa, so the self-citations are not load-bearing in the sense of forcing the paper's conclusions. The most serious issue is a data-comparability confound: the Chinese subset was collected by metaphor-keyword search on Baidu with Master Metaphor List terms, while the English subset was taken from Ye et al. (2021) and cleaned, so cross-language differences in source-vocabulary distribution, sentiment balance, and model performance may partly reflect different sampling pipelines rather than culture. This is a substantive validity threat to the 'cultural bias matters' interpretation, and the Limitations section does not acknowledge it, but it is not a circular reduction: the observed differences are empirical outcomes of two different collection procedures, not equalities forced by definition. The dataset and benchmark results stand independently of the interpretive claim. Overall score 1 reflects only the minor self-citation in annotation methodology, which does not vitiate the empirical content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical results depend on standard annotation and modeling assumptions. The main additional burden is the assumption that the two language subsets are comparable, which is not established. The potential use of MultiMM's sentiment labels in extracting S_i would also impose an unacknowledged assumption.

free parameters (5)
  • Learning rate = 3e-5 to 5e-4
    Tuned per the experimental settings; standard hyperparameter, not load-bearing.
  • Batch size = 64
    Tuned hyperparameter.
  • Epochs = 10
    Tuned hyperparameter.
  • Max text length = 30 tokens
    Tuned hyperparameter.
  • Dropout rate = 0.3
    Tuned hyperparameter.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Fleiss kappa thresholds (0.6 substantial, 0.8 near-perfect)
    Used to judge annotation reliability in Section 3.4; a standard statistical convention.
  • domain assumption Conceptual metaphor theory: multimodal metaphors are source-target mappings expressed across modalities
    Basis for the annotation model in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, following Forceville and Urios-Aparisi (2009) and Šorm and Steen (2018).
  • domain assumption Sentiment is universal across cultures
    Motivates the SEMD design in Section 5, citing Wallbott and Scherer (1986).
  • domain assumption The English and Chinese advertisement subsets are comparable despite different collection pipelines
    Assumed in the cross-cultural analyses in Sections 4 and 6; this is a potential confound because EN ads come from Ye et al. (2021) and CN ads come from Baidu keyword searches.
  • domain assumption The sentiment feature S_i is obtained without using MultiMM's gold sentiment labels
    Required to avoid label leakage in SEMD; the paper does not specify the sentiment analysis model used to produce S_i.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cultural Bias Matters: A Cross-Cultural Benchmark Dataset and Sentiment-Enriched Model for Understanding Multimodal Metaphors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OCXWEJPJ

@misc{pith2026250606987,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cultural Bias Matters: A Cross-Cultural Benchmark Dataset and Sentiment-Enriched Model for Understanding Multimodal Metaphors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OCXWEJPJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06987}
}
read the original abstract

Metaphors are pervasive in communication, making them crucial for natural language processing (NLP). Previous research on automatic metaphor processing predominantly relies on training data consisting of English samples, which often reflect Western European or North American biases. This cultural skew can lead to an overestimation of model performance and contributions to NLP progress. However, the impact of cultural bias on metaphor processing, particularly in multimodal contexts, remains largely unexplored. To address this gap, we introduce MultiMM, a Multicultural Multimodal Metaphor dataset designed for cross-cultural studies of metaphor in Chinese and English. MultiMM consists of 8,461 text-image advertisement pairs, each accompanied by fine-grained annotations, providing a deeper understanding of multimodal metaphors beyond a single cultural domain. Additionally, we propose Sentiment-Enriched Metaphor Detection (SEMD), a baseline model that integrates sentiment embeddings to enhance metaphor comprehension across cultural backgrounds. Experimental results validate the effectiveness of SEMD on metaphor detection and sentiment analysis tasks. We hope this work increases awareness of cultural bias in NLP research and contributes to the development of fairer and more inclusive language models. Our dataset and code are available at https://github.com/DUTIR-YSQ/MultiMM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06987 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of metaphors across cultures. a target domain, expressed through different com￾binations of modalities, such as text and image, text and sound, or image and sound (Forceville and Urios-Aparisi, 2009; Forceville, 2021; Zhang et al., 2025). For example, the text-image combi￾nation forming a deer shape in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of an advertisement with annota [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The distribution of source domain vocabulary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sentiment category distribution in metaphori [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Word clouds of source vocabulary across sentiment categories in Chinese (CN) and English (EN) advertisements. The Chinese word cloud is translated into English for better understanding. metaphors consistently convey richer emotional resonance than literal expressions a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The SEMD framework consists of three main branches: image features extracted by ViT, text features [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of metaphors. culture is promoted by incorporating drama masks and landscapes to form the character ‘徽’ (an ab￾breviation for Anhui Province in China), which frequently appears in Chinese advertisements. In conclusion, cultural and linguistic differences in￾cr…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Metaphor comparison across cultures for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ehsan Aghazadeh, Mohsen Fayyaz, and Yadollah Yaghoobzadeh. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.144 Metaphors in pre-trained language models: Probing and generalization across datasets and languages . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2037--2050, Dublin, Ire...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.144 2022

  2. [2]

    Arjun R Akula, Brendan Driscoll, Pradyumna Narayana, Soravit Changpinyo, Zhiwei Jia, Suyash Damle, Garima Pruthi, Sugato Basu, Leonidas Guibas, William T Freeman, and 1 others. 2023. Metaclue: Towards comprehensive visual metaphors research. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 23201--23211

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Alan Ansell, Edoardo Ponti, Anna Korhonen, and Ivan Vuli \'c . 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.125 Composable sparse fine-tuning for cross-lingual transfer . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1778--1796, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Li...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.125 2022

  4. [4]

    Shuai Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Sibo Song, Kai Dang, Peng Wang, Shijie Wang, Jun Tang, and 1 others. 2025. Qwen2. 5-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Julia Birke and Anoop Sarkar. 2006. https://aclanthology.org/E06-1042 A clustering approach for nearly unsupervised recognition of nonliteral language . In 11th Conference of the E uropean Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 329--336, Trento, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2006

  6. [6]

    Efrat Blaier, Itzik Malkiel, and Lior Wolf. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.738 Caption enriched samples for improving hateful memes detection . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9350--9358, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.738 2021

  7. [7]

    Guanhua Chen, Shuming Ma, Yun Chen, Dongdong Zhang, Jia Pan, Wenping Wang, and Furu Wei. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.12 Towards making the most of cross-lingual transfer for zero-shot neural machine translation . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 14...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.12 2022

  8. [8]

    Guihua Chen, Tiantian Wu, MiaoMiao Cheng, Xu Han, Jiefu Gong, Shijin Wang, and Wei Song. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.609 C hinese metaphorical relation extraction: Dataset and models . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 9085--9095, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.609 2023

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Minjin Choi, Sunkyung Lee, Eunseong Choi, Heesoo Park, Junhyuk Lee, Dongwon Lee, and Jongwuk Lee. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.141 M el BERT : Metaphor detection via contextualized late interaction using metaphorical identification theories . In Proceeding...

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzm \'a n, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.747 Unsupervised cross-lingual representation learning ...

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    DeepSeek-AI, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, Xiaokang Zhang, Xingkai Yu, Yu Wu, Z. F. Wu, Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Zhuoshu Li, Ziyi Gao, and 181 others. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.129...

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423 BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Associat...

    2019 doi

  5. [13]

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, and 1 others. 2020. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2010.11929 An image is worth 16x16 words: Transforme...

    2020 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, and 1 others. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Marlene Johansson Falck and Lacey Okonski. 2022. Procedure for identifying metaphorical scenes (pims): A cognitive linguistics approach to bridge theory and practice. Cognitive semantics, 8(2):294--322

    2022

  8. [16]

    Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031619 Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological bulletin, 76(5):378

    1971 doi

  9. [17]

    Charles Forceville. 2021. Multimodality. In The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics, pages 676--687. Routledge

    2021

  10. [18]

    Forceville and Eduardo Urios-Aparisi, editors

    Charles J. Forceville and Eduardo Urios-Aparisi, editors. 2009. https://doi.org/doi:10.1515/9783110215366 Multimodal Metaphor , volume 11. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, New York

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    Leo Gao, John Schulman, and Jacob Hilton. 2023. Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10835--10866. PMLR

    2023

  12. [20]

    Mengshi Ge, Rui Mao, and Erik Cambria. 2022 a . Explainable metaphor identification inspired by conceptual metaphor theory. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, 10, pages 10681--10689

    2022

  13. [21]

    Mengshi Ge, Rui Mao, and Erik Cambria. 2022 b . https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v36i10.21313 Explainable metaphor identification inspired by conceptual metaphor theory . Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36(10):10681--10689

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Vern L Glaser, Jennifer Sloan, and Joel Gehman. 2024. Organizations as algorithms: A new metaphor for advancing management theory. Journal of Management Studies

    2024

  15. [23]

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2016.90 Deep residual learning for image recognition . In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 770--778

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Wenjie Hong and Caroline Rossi. 2021. The cognitive turn in metaphor translation studies: A critical overview. Journal of Translation Studies, 5(2):83--115

    2021

  17. [25]

    Zhuanglin Hu. 2023. Metaphor and cognition. Springer

    2023

  18. [26]

    Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, and 1 others. 2024. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Gitit Kehat and James Pustejovsky. 2020. https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.726 Improving neural metaphor detection with visual datasets . In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 5928--5933, Marseille, France. European Language Resou...

    2020

  20. [28]

    Yurii Kovaliuk. 2024. Connecting idioms and metaphors: Where cognitive linguistics meets cognitive stylistics. British and American Studies Journal, 30:157--170

    2024

  21. [29]

    o vecses. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-44502010000300017 Metaphor, language, and culture . DELTA: Documenta c \ a o de Estudos em Ling \

    Zolt \'a n K \"o vecses. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-44502010000300017 Metaphor, language, and culture . DELTA: Documenta c \ a o de Estudos em Ling \"u \' stica Te \'o rica e Aplicada , 26:739--757

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    George Lakoff. 1994. Master metaphor list. University of California

    1994

  23. [31]

    Bin Liang, Chenwei Lou, Xiang Li, Min Yang, Lin Gui, Yulan He, Wenjie Pei, and Ruifeng Xu. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.124 Multi-modal sarcasm detection via cross-modal graph convolutional network . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Associati...

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. Visual instruction tuning

    2023

  25. [33]

    Jerry Liu, Nathan O ' Hara, Alexander Rubin, Rachel Draelos, and Cynthia Rudin. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.figlang-1.34 Metaphor detection using contextual word embeddings from transformers . In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Figurative Language Processing, ...

    2020 doi

  26. [34]

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2018. Fixing weight decay regularization in adam

    2018

  27. [35]

    Xingyuan Lu, Yuxi Liu, Dongyu Zhang, Zhiyao Wu, Jing Ren, and Feng Xia. 2025. Emometa: A multimodal dataset for fine-grained emotion classification in chinese metaphors. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025, pages 3080--3083

    2025

  28. [36]

    Krishanu Maity, Prince Jha, Sriparna Saha, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1145/3477495.3531925 A multitask framework for sentiment, emotion and sarcasm aware cyberbullying detection from multi-modal code-mixed memes . In Proceedings of the 45th Internation...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Rui Mao, Chenghua Lin, and Frank Guerin. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P18-1113 Word embedding and W ord N et based metaphor identification and interpretation . In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Paper...

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    Zachary J Mason. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1162/089120104773633376 Cormet: a computational, corpus-based conventional metaphor extraction system . Computational linguistics, 30(1):23--44

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    Robert Mauro, Kaori Sato, and John Tucker. 1992. The role of appraisal in human emotions: a cross-cultural study. Journal of personality and social psychology, 62(2):301

    1992

  32. [40]

    Saif Mohammad, Ekaterina Shutova, and Peter Turney. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S16-2003 Metaphor as a medium for emotion: An empirical study . In Proceedings of the Fifth Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics, pages 23--33, Berlin, Germany. Association...

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    Andreas Musolff. 2022. War against covid-19”: Is the pandemic management as war metaphor helpful or hurtful. A. Musolff, R. Breeze, K. Kondo, & S. Vilar-Lluch (Eds.), Pandemic and crisis discourse: Commu-nicating Covid-19 and public health strategy, pages 307--320

    2022

  34. [42]

    Andrew Ortony, Gerald L Clore, and Allan Collins. 2022. The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge university press

    2022

  35. [43]

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu ...

    2019

  36. [44]

    Rebecca Piekkari, Susanne Tietze, and Kaisa Koskinen. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619885415 Metaphorical and interlingual translation in moving organizational practices across languages . Organization Studies, 41(9):1311--1332

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    Peter Richardson, Charles M Mueller, and Stephen Pihlaja. 2021. Cognitive Linguistics and religious language: An introduction. Routledge

    2021

  38. [46]

    Ronald Rivest. 1992. The md5 message-digest algorithm. Technical report

    1992

  39. [47]

    it's a war! it's a battle! it's a fight!

    Julia Schnepf and Ursula Christmann. 2022. “it's a war! it's a battle! it's a fight!”: Do militaristic metaphors increase people's threat perceptions and support for covid-19 policies? International Journal of Psychology, 57(1):107--126

    2022

  40. [48]

    Joseph Seering, Geoff Kaufman, and Stevie Chancellor. 2022. Metaphors in moderation. New Media & Society, 24(3):621--640

    2022

  41. [49]

    Ulugova Shokhida Shokhrukhovna, Uktamova Malika Khasanovna, and Abdullayeva Parvina. 2024. Metaphorical insights into human psychology in jane eyre. SPAST Reports, 1(5)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Ekaterina Shutova, Douwe Kiela, and Jean Maillard. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N16-1020 Black holes and white rabbits: Metaphor identification with visual features . In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational...

    2016 doi

  43. [51]

    Ekaterina Shutova, Lin Sun, Elkin Darío Gutiérrez, Patricia Lichtenstein, and Srini Narayanan. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00275 Multilingual Metaphor Processing: Experiments with Semi-Supervised and Unsupervised Learning . Computational Linguistics, 43(1):71--123

    2017 doi

  44. [52]

    Ekaterina Shutova, Lin Sun, and Anna Korhonen. 2010. https://aclanthology.org/C10-1113 Metaphor identification using verb and noun clustering . In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010), pages 1002--1010, Beijing, China. Col...

    2010

  45. [53]

    Ekaterina Shutova, Simone Teufel, and Anna Korhonen. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00124 Statistical Metaphor Processing . Computational Linguistics, 39(2):301--353

    2013 doi

  46. [54]

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. 2014. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1409.1556 Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition . arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556

    2014 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    Esther S orm and Gerard Steen. 2018. Towards a method for visual metaphor identification. Visual metaphor: Structure and process, 18:47--88

    2018

  48. [56]

    B Liahnna Stanley, Alaina C Zanin, Brianna L Avalos, Sarah J Tracy, and Sophia Town. 2021. Collective emotion during collective trauma: A metaphor analysis of the covid-19 pandemic. Qualitative Health Research, 31(10):1890--1903

    2021

  49. [57]

    Gerard Steen, Aletta G Dorst, J Berenike Herrmann, Anna Kaal, Tina Krennmayr, Trijntje Pasma, and 1 others. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.14 A method for linguistic metaphor identification . Amsterdam: Benjamins

    2010 doi

  50. [58]

    Kevin Stowe, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Nanyun Peng, Smaranda Muresan, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.524 Metaphor generation with conceptual mappings . In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and ...

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    Chang Su, Weijie Chen, Ze Fu, and Yijiang Chen. 2021 a . Multimodal metaphor detection based on distinguishing concreteness. Neurocomputing, 429:166--173

    2021

  52. [60]

    Chang Su, Kechun Wu, and Yijiang Chen. 2021 b . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.109 Enhanced metaphor detection via incorporation of external knowledge based on linguistic theories . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, p...

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, and 1 others. 2023. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Yuan Tian, Ruike Zhang, Nan Xu, and Wenji Mao. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.719 Bridging word-pair and token-level metaphor detection with explainable domain mining . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics ...

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    Xiaoyu Tong, Rochelle Choenni, Martha Lewis, and Ekaterina Shutova. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.193 Metaphor understanding challenge dataset for LLM s . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Lo...

    2024 doi

  56. [64]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, and 1 others. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Lennart Wachowiak and Dagmar Gromann. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.58 Does GPT -3 grasp metaphors? identifying metaphor mappings with generative language models . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol...

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    Harald G Wallbott and Klaus R Scherer. 1986. How universal and specific is emotional experience? evidence from 27 countries on five continents. Social Science Information, 25(4):763--795

    1986

  59. [67]

    Bo Xu, Tingting Li, Junzhe Zheng, Mehdi Naseriparsa, Zhehuan Zhao, Hongfei Lin, and Feng Xia. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1145/3477495.3532019 Met-meme: A multimodal meme dataset rich in metaphors . In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Dev...

    2022

  60. [68]

    Bo Xu, Junzhe Zheng, Jiayuan He, Yuxuan Sun, Hongfei Lin, Liang Zhao, and Feng Xia. 2024 a . Generating multimodal metaphorical features for meme understanding. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 447--455

    2024

  61. [69]

    Xiaobing Xu, Miaolei Jia, and Rong Chen. 2024 b . Time moving or ego moving? how time metaphors influence perceived temporal distance. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 34(3):466--480

    2024

  62. [70]

    Yanzhi Xu, Yueying Hua, Shichen Li, and Zhongqing Wang. 2024 c . Exploring chain-of-thought for multi-modal metaphor detection. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 91--101

    2024

  63. [71]

    Krawczyk

    Fan-Pei Gloria Yang, Kailyn Bradley, Madiha Huq, Dai-Lin Wu, and Daniel C. Krawczyk. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.10.004 Contextual effects on conceptual blending in metaphors: An event-related potential study . Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26(2):312--326

    2013 doi

  64. [72]

    Keren Ye, Narges Honarvar Nazari, James Hahn, Zaeem Hussain, Mingda Zhang, and Adriana Kovashka. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2947440 Interpreting the rhetoric of visual advertisements . IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 43(4):1308--1323

    2021

  65. [73]

    Dongyu Zhang, Xingyuan Lu, Mulin Zhuang, Senqi Yang, and Hongjun Chen. 2025. Multimodal metaphor recognition based on chain-of-cognition prompting. Cognitive Systems Research, 91:101356

    2025

  66. [74]

    Dongyu Zhang, Jingwei Yu, Senyuan Jin, Liang Yang, and Hongfei Lin. 2023. Multicmet: A novel chinese benchmark for understanding multimodal metaphor. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 6141--6154

    2023

  67. [75]

    Dongyu Zhang, Minghao Zhang, Heting Zhang, Liang Yang, and Hongfei Lin. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.249 M ulti MET : A multimodal dataset for metaphor understanding . In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics...

    2021 doi

  68. [76]

    Linhao Zhang, Li Jin, Guangluan Xu, Xiaoyu Li, Cai Xu, Kaiwen Wei, Nayu Liu, and Haonan Liu. 2024. Camel: Capturing metaphorical alignment with context disentangling for multimodal emotion recognition. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 8, pages ...

    2024

  69. [77]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  70. [78]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.