Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 49 references

One Joke to Rule them All? On the (Im)possibility of Generalizing Humor

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Humor competence transfers across joke types in LLMs, with Dad Jokes the best source and hardest target.

desk verdict First systematic held-out humor-transfer study, but target-peeking hyperparameter selection and GPT-4-authored negatives mean the headline numbers are suggestive, not definitive. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19402 v1 pith:QH4LHTAJ submitted 2025-08-26 cs.CL cs.AI

Mor Turgeman , Chen Shani , Dafna Shahaf This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords humordetectiontransferlearningmulti-tasklargelanguagemodelsdatasetdiversityDadJokessarcasmgeneralization
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 asks whether an LLM trained on one or more types of humor can recognize a humor type it has never seen, and whether such transfer is helped by training on diverse humor sources. The authors fine-tune two 7-billion-parameter LLMs on four humor datasets—Amazon product questions, one-liners, sarcastic news headlines, and Reddit Dad Jokes—in single, paired, and triple combinations, then test each on the held-out humor type. They report that transfer is real and asymmetric: models reach up to 75% accuracy on unseen joke types, training on multiple sources improves transfer by 1.88–4.05 percentage points with only a small in-domain cost, and Dad Jokes are the best enabling source but the hardest target. A reader should care because new humor formats appear constantly online, and the question is whether machines can understand them without retraining on each new format. The paper also contributes a method for converting positive-only joke collections into supervised training sets by having an LLM minimally rewrite jokes into non-funny counterparts.

What carries the argument

The experimental machinery is a controlled transfer-learning ladder: three training regimes (single, pair, triple dataset) of fixed 5,000-sample size with equal sampling per dataset, tested on each held-out humor type. The asymmetry pattern is measured by cross-accuracy matrices among four binary humor-detection datasets. The Dad Jokes negative class is generated by GPT-4 Turbo making minimal word-level edits to real jokes to remove humor, which is what makes an originally positive-only dataset usable for binary classification and sustains the finding that Dad Jokes is unique as a source and target.

What would settle it

Replace the GPT-4-generated Dad Jokes negatives with human-written non-funny texts matched for style and content, then rerun the single-dataset and triple-dataset transfer experiments. If the asymmetry (Dad Jokes best source, worst target) and the diversity harm on Dad Jokes disappear or shrink, the original results are artifacts of the generated negative class.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that humor competence is partially transferable across joke types in instruction-fine-tuned LLMs, and the transfer is structured rather than uniform. Fine-tuning on Amazon questions transfers well to headlines (75%) and one-liners (72%), while the reverse transfers are weaker; Dad Jokes support strong transfer to all other types (68–71%) but are the hardest target for models trained elsewhere (51–62%). Increasing training diversity from one to two datasets improves transfer by 2.02–3.02 points on average (with a further modest gain to three datasets for LLaMA-2), while in-domain accuracy drops only 0.49–1.76 points even though in-domain data

Load-bearing premise

The Dad Jokes 'non-funny' examples are made by GPT-4 minimally rewriting real jokes until they are no longer funny, and the paper's most distinctive findings assume those rewrites are valid non-humor rather than recognizable machine-generated text.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LLMs can be prepared for novel humor formats by training on a handful of diverse existing types, without waiting for examples of the new format.
  • Increasing training-data diversity (even while shrinking per-type data to one third) improves transfer to unseen humor types while keeping in-domain accuracy nearly intact.
  • Dad Jokes should be included as source data in humor-transfer curricula, but a model that must detect Dad Jokes specifically will need some in-domain examples.
  • The consistent asymmetry across two model families points to shared structural properties among humor types that could inform cognitive theories of humor.
  • Positive-only joke datasets can be made usable for binary humor detection via minimal semantic edits that remove the humorous element.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the GPT-4-rewritten negatives are valid non-humor, the same minimal-edit recipe could expand humor-transfer studies to other positive-only sources like caption contests or r/cleanjokes, letting researchers test whether the Dad Jokes asymmetry is general.
  • The 'best source, worst target' pattern resembles domain generalization in other text tasks: diverse, structurally rich sources transfer broadly while narrow, templatic targets overfit surface conventions—so the same ladder could be run on other 'deep' vs 'shallow' text domains, not just humor.
  • The result that diversity hurts Dad Jokes transfer, if it replicates, is a practical warning for data-mixing strategies: complex styles may need dedicated in-domain data even when other humor data is abundant.
  • Because only two 7B models were used and they differed in transfer strength, the claim that the hierarchy reflects humor structure rather than architecture is open: repeating the ladder on larger or newer instruction-tuned models would settle it.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper asks whether LLMs can transfer humor-detection competence across four distinct humor datasets (Amazon Questions, Reddit Dad Jokes, Sarcasm Headlines, One Liners). Using LLaMA-2-7B and Mistral-7B, the authors fine-tune on one, two, or three datasets and evaluate on held-out humor types. They report that transfer is possible (up to 75% accuracy on an unseen dataset), that training on diverse sources improves transferability by 1.88–4.05 percentage points with minimal loss of in-domain accuracy, and that Dad Jokes is the best source but worst target of transfer. The paper releases data and code.

Significance. If the reported results survive scrutiny, the paper is a useful first systematic step toward understanding humor transfer in LLMs. Its strengths include a reasonably broad experimental grid over four datasets and two model families, explicit zero-shot baselines, four training seeds with reported standard deviations, and public code/data. The central scientific contribution—that humor competence is partially transferable across types and that data diversity helps—is plausible and potentially actionable for dataset design. However, the headline numerical claims are currently compromised by a hyperparameter-selection protocol that uses the held-out target data, and one of the four datasets relies on GPT-4-generated negatives, which confounds the main type-level asymmetry. Both issues are fixable but require re-analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix D and Section 5.3 / Table 7] The reported transfer and diversity numbers are produced by a model-selection protocol that peeks at the held-out target datasets. Appendix D states that the top 3 configurations per dataset are chosen 'based on median cross-validation accuracy across all evaluation datasets', and that 'the configuration with the highest median accuracy across all datasets was selected for final evaluation.' Because 'all datasets' includes the transfer targets, the single/double/triple accuracies are maxima over configurations selected on target validation folds. The candidate pool grows from 3 (single) to 6 (double) to 9 (triple), so the 1.88–4.05 percentage-point diversity gains in Table 7 are confounded with increased selection pressure. The existence of above-chance transfer may well survive a target-blind re-analysis, but the specific magnitudes and the central diversity claim are not supported as r
  2. [Section 3.1 and Appendix B] The Dad Jokes 'non-funny' class is generated by GPT-4-Turbo via minimal rewriting of positive jokes. Because GPT-4 is itself an LLM, the rewrites may carry systematic stylistic fingerprints, making the negative class identifiable by artifact rather than by humor structure. This directly affects the paper's most distinctive finding—Dad Jokes as the best transfer source but hardest transfer target—and is consistent with the high 93–94% in-domain accuracies. The manual review of 3,000 outputs checked for style/content preservation and punchline removal, but it did not validate with human annotators that the rewritten texts are actually non-funny, nor did it control for LLM stylistic cues. I request a human unfunniness validation study and, if possible, an additional negative class from naturally non-humorous human-written text, with a comparison of the Dad Jokes transfer results under both
  3. [Sections 5.1–5.3] The qualitative hierarchy (e.g., 'Dad Jokes enables strong transfer but is difficult to generalize to' and 'Headlines and One Liners are easier targets') is based on point estimates without statistical testing or confidence intervals. Given the small number of datasets and the selection issue in Appendix D, these pairwise asymmetries should be treated as exploratory unless accompanied by a target-blind protocol and some measure of uncertainty over the selection procedure. This is not a demand for new data, but the claims in Section 5.2 should be softened or explicitly labeled as hypothesis-generating until the re-analysis is available.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / Section 4] The phrase 'unseen datasets' is currently inaccurate under the reported protocol, since the held-out targets participate in hyperparameter selection. After the re-analysis, define explicitly whether 'unseen' means 'never used at any point in training or validation.'
  2. [Table 1] The asterisk on the Amazon length row is explained in the text but would be clearer as a table footnote; the two length statistics for the same row could also be separated into two rows for readability.
  3. [Appendix B] Minor typo: 'Nickleback' should be 'Nickelback'. Also, the few-shot prompt contains only five examples; the selection criteria for these examples are not stated.
  4. [Section 5.4 / Appendix H] The embedding-similarity analysis is based on a single model (Mistral) with no variance estimate. It is framed as exploratory, but the conclusions in the text would benefit from an explicit exploratory caveat.
  5. [Appendix D] Clarify which split is used for 'cross-validation accuracy across all evaluation datasets'—validation folds of all four datasets, or only the training dataset? Also state explicitly whether the final test folds were ever used to select hyperparameters.
  6. [Section 5.3.3] The in-domain comparison between single-dataset and triple-dataset training is informative, but the two setups use different selected hyperparameters and different validation protocols; a sentence acknowledging this confound would improve precision.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline transfer/diversity numbers are selected on target data: reported 'unseen' accuracy is a maximization over configurations tuned on the targets.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix D (Training and Hyperparameter Selection Details); cited in Abstract, Sections 5.1, 5.3]
    "For each dataset, we selected the top 3 configurations based on median cross-validation accuracy across all evaluation datasets. ... The configuration with the highest median accuracy across all datasets was selected for final evaluation on test set."

    The hyperparameter search selects configurations using validation accuracy on the same datasets that are later called 'unseen' transfer targets. In the single, double, and triple setups, the final configuration is the one with the highest median accuracy across all evaluation datasets, including the held-out target. Thus the reported transfer accuracy is a maximum over configurations chosen on target labels, not an unbiased prediction for an unseen dataset. The diversity comparison is also confounded: single training evaluates 3 candidates, double 6, and triple 9, so the advertised 1.88–4.05 point diversity gain partly reflects increased selection pressure rather than data diversity. Consequently, the abstract's 'up to 75% accuracy on unseen datasets' and the diversity-improvement claim ar

full rationale

The paper's central transfer and diversity claims rest on hyperparameter selection that peeks at the target datasets. Appendix D states that configurations are selected by median accuracy 'across all evaluation datasets,' and the final configuration is the one with the highest median accuracy across all datasets. In transfer experiments, the evaluation datasets include the held-out target, so the reported 'unseen' accuracy is a selected maximum rather than an unbiased estimate. Moreover, the number of candidate configurations grows from 3 (single) to 6 (double) to 9 (triple), so the measured diversity gain is confounded with increased selection pressure. This is a concrete instance of fitted input being reported as prediction: the hyperparameters are fit (selected) on target validation data, and the resulting test accuracy is presented as a generalization result. I do not count the GPT-4-generated Dad Jokes negatives as constructional circularity: the negative labels are not defined in terms of the evaluated models, so the Dad Jokes results may suffer from a label-validity threat (GPT rewrite style detection) but not a derivation-level circularity. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears. Because the exact headline magnitudes are partially forced by the selection protocol, but the above-chance transfer direction likely survives (zero-shot baselines are 40–56%), the appropriate circularity score is 6 rather than 8–10.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on dataset-quality judgments and the transfer-as-humor mapping rather than on numeric parameters in a derivation. The main unexamined input is the GPT-4-generated Dad Jokes negative class (Appendix B), which is both a hand-made design choice and a circularity risk. The other hand-tuned lever is the Appendix D configuration-selection rule, which uses held-out target validation sets and can inflate transfer accuracy. No new conceptual entities are introduced; the negative-example generation 'framework' is a method, not an entity.

free parameters (5)
  • Reddit score threshold for Dad Jokes positives = >= 20
    Selects 'high-confidence' positive samples; an arbitrary cut that defines the Dad Jokes label distribution (Section 3.1).
  • Per-dataset downsample size = 6,250
    Random downsample to equalize dataset sizes; caps all training and evaluation sets (Section 3.2).
  • Training set size per run = 5,000
    Fixed training size across single, double and triple setups, sampled equally per dataset (Section 3.2); controls total volume but dilutes per-dataset examples in diverse setups.
  • Validation split size = 2%
    80/2/18 split; hyperparameter and final-configuration selection rely on this very small validation pool, making selection noisy (Section 3.2, Appendix D).
  • LoRA hyperparameters (learning rate, rank, alpha) plus final-config selection rule = e.g., 3e-4, 64, 32; rule = highest median accuracy across all evaluation datasets
    Hyperparameters are hand- and search-selected by 4-fold CV, and the final configuration is chosen using validation sets of all evaluation datasets including the held-out targets, which can optimistically bias reported transfer numbers (Appendix D).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Each of the four datasets is a valid operationalization of a distinct humor type.
    The transfer-hierarchy claims in Section 5.2 interpret cross-dataset accuracy as relations between humor styles; the paper itself acknowledges these assignments are approximate and datasets are mixed-genre (Sections 3, 8).
  • domain assumption Accuracy on a held-out dataset measures transfer of humor competence, not format, topic, or annotation-shift artifacts.
    Used throughout Section 5 to convert accuracy tables into claims about humor structure; there is no control for surface-form similarity such as headline versus question format.
  • ad hoc to paper GPT-4-edited Dad Jokes are valid non-humorous examples whose humor removal introduces no confounded distributional signal.
    Section 3.1 and Appendix B. The 'non-funny' class for one of four humor types is machine-generated by the same model family under study; only a style/content consistency check (2.63% failures) on 3,000 examples was performed, with no human humor-quality adjudication.
  • domain assumption Seed-averaged accuracy differences are meaningful without significance testing.
    The 1.88-4.05% diversity gains and the transfer hierarchy are drawn from Tables 2-4 and 7 without significance tests; the seed standard deviations in Table 6 overlap several reported differences.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of One Joke to Rule them All? On the (Im)possibility of Generalizing Humor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QH4LHTAJ

@misc{pith2026250819402,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: One Joke to Rule them All? On the (Im)possibility of Generalizing Humor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QH4LHTAJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19402}
}
read the original abstract

Humor is a broad and complex form of communication that remains challenging for machines. Despite its broadness, most existing research on computational humor traditionally focused on modeling a specific type of humor. In this work, we wish to understand whether competence on one or more specific humor tasks confers any ability to transfer to novel, unseen types; in other words, is this fragmentation inevitable? This question is especially timely as new humor types continuously emerge in online and social media contexts (e.g., memes, anti-humor, AI fails). If Large Language Models (LLMs) are to keep up with this evolving landscape, they must be able to generalize across humor types by capturing deeper, transferable mechanisms. To investigate this, we conduct a series of transfer learning experiments across four datasets, representing different humor tasks. We train LLMs under varied diversity settings (1-3 datasets in training, testing on a novel task). Experiments reveal that models are capable of some transfer, and can reach up to 75% accuracy on unseen datasets; training on diverse sources improves transferability (1.88-4.05%) with minimal-to-no drop in in-domain performance. Further analysis suggests relations between humor types, with Dad Jokes surprisingly emerging as the best enabler of transfer (but is difficult to transfer to). We release data and code.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19402 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. depicts our three experimental setups. • Single Dataset Training: Examines whether basic transfer occurs between datasets (RQ1) and whether certain datasets are more similar 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [Increasing the training data diversity im￾proves transfer.] Comparing transfer across the ex￾periments. Mistral results are shown with solid lines, LLaMA-2 with dotted lines. Colors represent different test datasets. The x-axis indicates the experiment type, and the y-axis shows the mean transfer accuracy. In gen￾eral, more diverse training data leads to better transfer than single-dataset training. LLaMA-2 shows c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparing self accuracy across the experiments. Mistral results are shown with solid lines, LLaMA-2 with dotted lines. Colors represent different test datasets. The x-axis indicates the experiment type, along with the number of in-domain training samples, and the y-axis shows the mean accuracy on the in-domain dataset. Mistral exhibits robust performance even as in-domain data decreases. LLaMA-2 results are less sta… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mistral Embeddings Cosine Similarity Heatmap. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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 INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Romina Angeleri and Gabriella Airenti. 2014. The development of joke and irony understanding: a study with 3-to 6-year-old children. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie exp \'e rimentale , 68(2):133

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Aseem Arora, Ga \"e l Dias, Adam Jatowt, and Asif Ekbal. 2022. Transfer learning for humor detection by twin masked yellow muppets. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 12th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1--7

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Salvatore Attardo. 2000. Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of pragmatics, 32(6):793--826

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Salvatore Attardo. 2024. Linguistic theories of humor, volume 1. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Sayak Autrin et al. 2023. Peft: Parameter-efficient fine-tuning. https://github.com/huggingface/peft. Accessed: 2025-07-20

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Alexander Baranov, Vladimir Kniazhevsky, and Pavel Braslavski. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.845 You told me that joke twice: A systematic investigation of transferability and robustness of humor detection models . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 13701--13715, Singapore. ...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.845 2023

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Hao Chen, Abdul Waheed, Xiang Li, Yidong Wang, Jindong Wang, Bhiksha Raj, and Marah I. Abdin. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.15226 On the diversity of synthetic data and its impact on training large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2410.15226

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Alessio Cocchieri, Luca Ragazzi, Paolo Italiani, Giuseppe Tagliavini, and Gianluca Moro. 2025. https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.1117/ ``what do you call a dog that is incontrovertibly true? dogma'': Testing LLM generalization through humor . In Proceedings of the 63rd An...

    2025

  3. [11]

    Ru H Dai, Hsueh-Chih Chen, Yu C Chan, Ching-Lin Wu, Ping Li, Shu L Cho, and Jon-Fan Hu. 2017. To resolve or not to resolve, that is the question: The dual-path model of incongruity resolution and absurd verbal humor by fmri. Frontiers in psychology, 8:498

    2017

  4. [12]

    Marta Dynel. 2009. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00152.x Beyond a joke: Types of conversational humour . Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(5):1284--1299

    2009 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Andrew H Farkas, Rebekah L Trotti, Elizabeth A Edge, Ling-Yu Huang, Aviva Kasowski, Olivia F Thomas, Eli Chlan, Maria P Granros, Kajol K Patel, and Dean Sabatinelli. 2021. Humor and emotion: Quantitative meta analyses of functional neuroimaging studies. Cortex, 139:60--72

    2021

  6. [14]

    Zachary Horvitz, Jingru Chen, Rahul Aditya, Harshvardhan Srivastava, Robert West, Zhou Yu, and Kathleen McKeown. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.00794 Getting serious about humor: Crafting humor datasets with unfunny large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2403.00794

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2022. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR, 1(2):3

    2022

  8. [16]

    Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas ...

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Antonios Kalloniatis and Panagiotis Adamidis. 2024. Computational humor recognition: a systematic literature review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 58(2):43

    2024

  10. [18]

    Chloe Kiddon and Yuriy Brun. 2011. That’s what she said: double entendre identification. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, pages 89--94

    2011

  11. [19]

    Gitanjali Kumari, Dibyanayan Bandyopadhyay, Asif Ekbal, Santanu Pal, Arindam Chatterjee, and Vinutha BN. 2024. Let's all laugh together: A novel multitask framework for humor detection in internet memes. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 11(3):4385--4395

    2024

  12. [20]

    Tyler Loakman, William Thorne, and Chenghua Lin. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13335 Comparing apples to oranges: A dataset & analysis of llm humour understanding from traditional puns to topical jokes . Preprint, arXiv:2507.13335

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Lin Long, Rui Wang, Ruixuan Xiao, Junbo Zhao, Xiao Ding, Gang Chen, and Haobo Wang. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.658 On LLM s-driven synthetic data generation, curation, and evaluation: A survey . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguist...

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Rod A Martin and Thomas Ford. 2018. The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. Academic press

    2018

  15. [23]

    Martin, Patricia Puhlik-Doris, Gwen Larsen, Jeanette Gray, and Kelly Weir

    Rod A. Martin, Patricia Puhlik-Doris, Gwen Larsen, Jeanette Gray, and Kelly Weir. 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00534-2 Individual differences in uses of humor and their relation to psychological well-being: Development of the humor styles questionnaire . Journal...

    2003 doi

  16. [24]

    Rada Mihalcea and Carlo Strapparava. 2005. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:5766640 Making computers laugh: Investigations in automatic humor recognition . In Human Language Technology - The Baltic Perspectiv

    2005

  17. [25]

    Tristan Miller, Christian Hempelmann, and Iryna Gurevych. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/S17-2005 S em E val-2017 task 7: Detection and interpretation of E nglish puns . In Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation ( S em E val-2017) , pages 58--...

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Rishabh Misra and Prahal Arora. 2023. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:256523473 Sarcasm detection using news headlines dataset . AI Open, 4:13--18

    2023

  19. [27]

    OpenAI . 2023. https://openai.com/index/new-models-and-developer-products-announced-at-devday/ New models and developer products announced at dev day . Accessed: 2025-07-20

    2023

  20. [28]

    Victor Raskin. 1979. Semantic mechanisms of humor. In Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pages 325--335

    1979

  21. [29]

    Reddit. 2023. Reddit dad jokes. https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/oktayozturk010/reddit-dad-jokes/data

    2023

  22. [30]

    Ohad Rozen, Vered Shwartz, Roee Aharoni, and Ido Dagan. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/K19-1019 Diversify your datasets: Analyzing generalization via controlled variance in adversarial datasets . In Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Computational Natural Language Learni...

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Mohammadamin Shafiei and Hamidreza Saffari. 2025. Not all jokes land: Evaluating large language models understanding of workplace humor. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01819

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Dafna Shahaf, Eric Horvitz, and Robert Mankoff. 2015. Inside jokes: Identifying humorous cartoon captions. In Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 1065--1074

    2015

  25. [33]

    alexa, do you want to build a snowman?

    Chen Shani, Alexander Libov, Sofia Tolmach, Liane Lewin-Eytan, Yoelle Maarek, and Dafna Shahaf. 2022. “alexa, do you want to build a snowman?” characterizing playful requests to conversational agents. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, ...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Natalie Shapira, Oren Kalinsky, Alex Libov, Chen Shani, and Sofia Tolmach. 2023. Evaluating humorous response generation to playful shopping requests. In European Conference on Information Retrieval, pages 617--626. Springer

    2023

  27. [35]

    Jerry M Suls. 1972. A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing analysis. The psychology of humor: Theoretical perspectives and empirical issues, 1:81--100

    1972

  28. [36]

    Julia M Taylor and Lawrence J Mazlack. 2004. Computationally recognizing wordplay in jokes. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society, volume 26

    2004

  29. [37]

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

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Villy Tsakona. 2017. Genres of humor. In The Routledge handbook of language and humor, pages 489--503. Routledge

    2017

  31. [39]

    Jindong Wang, Cuiling Lan, Chang Liu, Yidong Ouyang, Tao Qin, Wang Lu, Yiqiang Chen, Wenjun Zeng, and Philip S. Yu. 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.03097 Generalizing to unseen domains: A survey on domain generalization . Preprint, arXiv:2103.03097

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Minghan Wang, Hao Yang, Ying Qin, Shiliang Sun, and Yao Deng. 2020. Unified humor detection based on sentence-pair augmentation and transfer learning. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the European association for machine translation, pages 53--59

    2020

  33. [41]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, R \'e mi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, ...

    2020

  34. [42]

    Heng Xie, Jizhou Cui, Yuhang Cao, Junjie Chen, Jianhua Tao, Cunhang Fan, Xuefei Liu, Zhengqi Wen, Heng Lu, Yuguang Yang, et al. 2023. Multimodal cross-lingual features and weight fusion for cross-cultural humor detection. In Proceedings of the 4th on Multimodal Sentiment Analy...

    2023

  35. [43]

    a good pun is its own reword

    Zhijun Xu, Siyu Yuan, Lingjie Chen, and Deqing Yang. 2024. " a good pun is its own reword": Can large language models understand puns? arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13599

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bat-el Yankovitz, Anat Kasirer, and Nira Mashal. 2023. The relationship between semantic joke and idiom comprehension in adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. Brain Sciences, 13(6):935

    2023

  37. [45]

    Yu Yu, Shahram Khadivi, and Jia Xu. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.coling-1.437/ Can data diversity enhance learning generalization? In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 4933--4945, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. Internatio...

    2022

  38. [46]

    Yu Zhang and Qiang Yang. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08114 A survey on multi-task learning . Preprint, arXiv:1707.08114

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Yuchang Zhu, Huazhen Zhong, Qunshu Lin, Haotong Wei, Xiaolong Sun, Zixuan Yu, Minghao Liu, Zibin Zheng, and Liang Chen. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.19262 What matters in llm-generated data: Diversity and its effect on model fine-tuning . Preprint, arXiv:2506.19262

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Fuzhen Zhuang, Zhiyuan Qi, Keyu Duan, Dongbo Xi, Yongchun Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, Hui Xiong, and Qing He. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2020.3004555 A comprehensive survey on transfer learning . Proceedings of the IEEE, 109(1):43--76

    2021

  41. [49]

    Yftah Ziser, Elad Kravi, and David Carmel. 2020. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:220730184 Humor detection in product question answering systems . Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.