Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 63 references

Irony Detection, Reasoning and Understanding in Zero-shot Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A prompt recipe lets GPT and Gemini detect irony without any training on ironic examples, coming close to supervised detectors and beating six zero-shot baselines.

desk verdict A useful zero-shot irony detection framework with a plausible core result, but Table XI's internally inconsistent F1 values need a fix before the headline numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16884 v2 pith:4TPPK3QS submitted 2025-01-28 cs.CL cs.AI

Peiling Yi , Yuhan Xia , Yunfei Long This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords ironydetectionzero-shotlearningpromptengineeringlargelanguagemodelschain-of-thoughtpromptingself-consistencyvotingfigurativeexplainableNLP
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 argues that a zero-shot LLM can detect irony almost as reliably as models trained specifically for the task, provided the prompt is built from irony-focused knowledge that the LLM itself generates. The authors propose IDADP, a framework that first asks the model to produce definitions and detection procedures for irony, then folds that knowledge into several task-specific prompts, and finally combines the answers with majority voting. Across six public irony datasets and two LLMs (GPT-3.5 and Gemini-1.5), they report that IDADP consistently outperforms six zero-shot prompting baselines and comes close to three fine-tuned BERT-family classifiers, while also emitting a human-readable explanation and a non-ironic paraphrase of each statement. The sympathetic reader should care because strong zero-shot performance would mean irony detection no longer depends on collecting and annotating expensive domain-specific training sets.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the IDADP prompt stack: an irony-knowledge extraction stage that uses prompt patterns (persona, question refinement, recipe) to elicit definitions and procedures from the LLM, followed by a knowledge-integration stage that embeds that extracted knowledge into three distinct task prompts, and finally a best-of-three majority vote over the prompt outputs. The mechanism works by using the model's own generated knowledge as contextual bias, counteracting the prompt sensitivity and output variability that the paper identifies as weaknesses of vanilla in-context learning.

What would settle it

Take a freshly collected set of ironic and non-ironic social media posts written after both models' training cutoffs, run the same IDADP prompts, and compare the F1 gap to supervised baselines; if the advantage over zero-shot baselines largely disappears on this held-out fresh data, the framework's reported generalization would be mostly an artifact of benchmark contamination.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the gap between supervised and zero-shot irony detection is mostly a prompting gap, not a capability gap. IDADP treats irony knowledge as something to be generated on the fly: the model is prompted to state what irony is, what features mark it, and what steps lead to its detection; those statements are then embedded into three differently framed prompts (a step-by-step detection procedure, a definition-and-contrast checklist, and a probabilistic classification with a threshold); and their outputs are merged by majority vote. On the iSarcasm, SemEval-2018, Gen, RQ, HYP, and Reddit datasets, the authors report that this pipeline raises micro-F1 over the strongest zero-shot baseline from roughly 0.63 to 0.71 on average, narrowing the distance to supervised models fine-tuned on 80% of each dataset. The same framework also produces reasoning text rated by human evaluators and paraphrases whose BERT cosine similarity to intended meanings clusters between 0.7 and 0.9.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark examples used to measure 'zero-shot' performance are not part of the pretraining data of the two language models, so the numbers measure generalization to new text rather than memory of old examples.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Zero-shot irony detection becomes practical on platforms where no annotated training set exists, since only a prompt template and an LLM API are needed.
  • The reasoning output gives NLP systems a transparent, human-readable justification for an irony label instead of an uninterpretable probability.
  • The paraphrase output converts ironic statements into their intended literal meaning, which can be fed downstream to sentiment analysis or misinformation detection so irony does not invert their predictions.
  • Because the framework improves both GPT and Gemini by similar margins, the benefit transfers across model families rather than being tied to one API.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same generate-then-vote recipe could be tested on other figurative language tasks, such as sarcasm in dialogue, hyperbole, or satire detection, where the bottleneck is also task-specific knowledge rather than raw language ability.
  • The human-readable reasoning produced by IDADP could be used as synthetic training data to distill a smaller, cheaper irony detector from the LLM, a step the paper does not take.
  • A direct test of the framework's robustness would be to apply IDADP to datasets annotated by a different procedure than the authors selected, such as fine-grained irony subtypes or non-English irony, to see whether the knowledge-generated prompts transfer across annotation schemes.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents IDADP, a multi-stage prompt-engineering framework for zero-shot irony detection, reasoning, and understanding with large language models. The framework first generates irony-focused knowledge from the model using several prompt patterns, then integrates this knowledge into three task-specific prompts (one of which uses a probabilistic score with a hand-set threshold of 0.7), and finally aggregates the three outputs by majority voting. Experiments on six public irony datasets with GPT-3.5 and Gemini-1.5 compare IDADP against six zero-shot prompting baselines and three fine-tuned transformer classifiers. The paper reports that IDADP consistently outperforms the zero-shot baselines and approaches (and on RQ exceeds) the fine-tuned models, while also producing readable reasoning and non-ironic paraphrases.

Significance. If the reported results held, the paper would make a useful empirical contribution: a training-free, relatively inexpensive prompt recipe that narrows the gap to supervised irony detection across heterogeneous social-media datasets, with code released and detailed prompt templates given for reproducibility. The evaluation design goes beyond binary accuracy by including human-scored reasoning, Flesch-Kincaid readability with consistency, and BERT-cosine similarity for understanding, and the ablation isolates the contributions of voting and knowledge integration. However, because the headline quantitative comparisons currently contain arithmetic inconsistencies and lack statistical safeguards, the significance claim is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V.E.1, Table XI] Several F1 entries are inconsistent with the reported precision and recall. For IDADP-GPT on RQ, P=0.80 and R=0.73 imply F1=0.763, not the reported 0.82; similar mismatches occur for iSarcasm (0.683 vs 0.67), HYP (0.794 vs 0.76), and Reddit (0.635 vs 0.64). Because the paper's central claim that IDADP 'outperforms all fine-tuned models on the RQ dataset' restates this 0.82, the quantitative foundation of the paper is currently unverified. Please recompute all F1 values from raw predictions, release the evaluation script and per-dataset outputs, and state explicitly whether F1 is computed over all instances or over the ironic class.
  2. [Section V.E.1, Table XI and Section V.A] No error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported, although LLM decoding at temperature 0.3 is stochastic and many adjacent entries differ by a few F1 points. The claim that IDADP 'consistently outperforms' the zero-shot baselines requires at least multiple runs with variance reporting and a paired test such as McNemar's test on the label-level predictions.
  3. [Section III.A and Section V.A] The six public datasets were used without any contamination analysis. Since GPT-3.5 and Gemini-1.5 may have encountered these well-known benchmarks during pretraining, the absence of a contamination check or a temporal split means the 'zero-shot generalization' interpretation and the comparison to supervised models may be inflated. Please report a contamination analysis (for example, probing for exact or near-duplicate instances, or evaluating on a post-training-period held-out set) or qualify the claims accordingly.
  4. [Section V.F, Table XVI] The ablation does not support the sentence 'The IDADP framework achieves the highest performance on all datasets': on SemEval, single prompt P1 gives F1=0.66 vs full IDADP's 0.65; on Gen, P1 gives 0.78 vs 0.74; and on HYP, P3 gives 0.77 vs 0.76. Additionally, the table is internally tied to the inconsistent Table XI values (e.g., RQ 0.82). Please re-run the ablation with corrected metrics and explain why individual prompts occasionally outperform the full framework.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table I] The header 'Ration' should be 'Ratio'.
  2. [Table VII] The prompt list has a duplicated step number '3.' and the numbering is inconsistent; the same typo appears in the prose description.
  3. [Table XIV] In the PS row, 'Max mVerstappen' should be 'Max Verstappen'.
  4. [Section VI] 'Generalisaton' is misspelled as 'Generalisaton'.
  5. [Section V.D.2] The text repeats the same sentence about standard deviation almost verbatim in consecutive paragraphs.
  6. [Section V.D.2] The B measure formula is B = Flesch/100 + Human/3, which can exceed 1; please clarify its intended scale and interpretation in the table.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: IDADP's detection claim is evaluated against external human labels, and its knowledge-generation and voting components are not defined in terms of the target labels.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: IDADP, combining LLM-generated irony knowledge, multiple task-specific prompts, and majority voting, outperforms zero-shot baselines on six public irony datasets. The evaluation labels come from external human annotations (Section III.A, Table I), not from IDADP itself, so the detection result is not defined in terms of the framework's own outputs. The knowledge-extraction stage uses LLM-generated definitions, features, and detection-process cues, but these are prompt ingredients, not the benchmark labels; they are also grounded in external prior work on prompt patterns and generated-knowledge prompting (e.g., [18], [44], [61]). The voting mechanism aggregates three prompt outputs; no parameter is fitted to the test labels, and the 0.7 threshold in one prompt is stated as a fixed setting rather than tuned per dataset. Reasoning is scored by human evaluators and Flesch-Kincaid readability, while understanding is measured by BERT cosine similarity against author-provided intended meanings; none of these metrics is constructed from IDADP's predictions in a way that forces the claimed advantage. I find no self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no equation in which a predicted quantity is equal by construction to an input. The arithmetic inconsistencies in Table XI are a correctness and reproducibility concern, not a circularity concern. Therefore the derivation is self-contained with respect to circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the quality of LLM-generated irony knowledge, the reliability of public dataset labels, the validity of BERT cosine similarity as a measure of meaning preservation, the representativeness of a small human evaluation, and the assumption that benchmark instances were unseen during pretraining. The only hand-set numerical parameter identified is the 0.7 probability threshold.

free parameters (1)
  • Irony detection probability threshold = 0.7
    One of the three IDADP prompts fixes the irony probability threshold at 0.7 (Table IX, Sample 3). No sensitivity analysis, calibration curve, or data-driven selection is reported, and this threshold enters the voting ensemble.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Public irony dataset labels are reliable ground truth for detection and intended meaning.
    The evaluation treats iSarcasm, SemEval, Gen, RQ, HYP, and Reddit labels as correct and comparable (Section III.A), although annotation methods and annotator backgrounds differ.
  • domain assumption LLM-generated irony-focused knowledge is relevant and accurate enough to improve prompts.
    Irony-focused Knowledge Extraction (Section IV.C.1) assumes the LLM's self-generated definitions and detection steps are useful; no independent verification of this knowledge is provided beyond the downstream F1 improvements.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity between BERT embeddings of a non-ironic rewrite and the author-provided intended meaning measures understanding.
    The understanding evaluation (Section V.D.3, Figure 4) uses this metric without validating that embedding similarity correlates with human judgments of meaning preservation.
  • domain assumption The six public benchmark datasets were not present in LLM pretraining.
    Zero-shot generalization is the stated goal (Section V.A), but no contamination analysis is reported for these widely available corpora.
  • domain assumption The one-third subset scored by three graduate students is representative and reliably annotated.
    Reasoning evaluation (Section V.D.2) reports no sampling procedure, no inter-annotator agreement, and no blinding, yet the human scores are used in the headline B measure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Irony Detection, Reasoning and Understanding in Zero-shot Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4TPPK3QS

@misc{pith2026250116884,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Irony Detection, Reasoning and Understanding in Zero-shot Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4TPPK3QS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16884}
}
read the original abstract

The generalisation of irony detection faces significant challenges, leading to substantial performance deviations when detection models are applied to diverse real-world scenarios. In this study, we find that irony-focused prompts, as generated from our IDADP framework for LLMs, can not only overcome dataset-specific limitations but also generate coherent, human-readable reasoning, transforming ironic text into its intended meaning. Based on our findings and in-depth analysis, we identify several promising directions for future research aimed at enhancing LLMs' zero-shot capabilities in irony detection, reasoning, and comprehension. These include advancing contextual awareness in irony detection, exploring hybrid symbolic-neural methods, and integrating multimodal data, among others.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16884 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A concrete example of the IDADP framework for irony detection, understanding, and reasoning. In the Irony-focused Knowledge Extraction stage, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall architecture of the IDADP framework. The process begins with Irony-focused Knowledge Extraction, where multiple tailored prompts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance comparison of IDADP and baseline models on ironic and non-ironic sentence detection across six datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Frequency distribution of cosine similarity scores across three ranges [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radar charts display cosine similarities of literal, intended, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W. C. Booth,A rhetoric of irony. University of Chicago Press, 1974

    work page 1974

  2. [2]

    Lear,A case for irony

    J. Lear,A case for irony. Harvard University Press, 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Automatic sarcasm detection: A survey,

    A. Joshi, P. Bhattacharyya, and M. J. Carman, “Automatic sarcasm detection: A survey,”ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1–22, 2017

    2017

  4. [4]

    Situational irony: A concept of events gone awry

    J. Lucariello, “Situational irony: A concept of events gone awry.”Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 123, no. 2, p. 129, 1994

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    From humor recognition to irony detection: The figurative language of social media,

    A. Reyes, P. Rosso, and D. Buscaldi, “From humor recognition to irony detection: The figurative language of social media,”Data & Knowledge Engineering, vol. 74, pp. 1–12, 2012

    2012

  6. [6]

    A transformer- based approach to irony and sarcasm detection,

    R. A. Potamias, G. Siolas, and A.-G. Stafylopatis, “A transformer- based approach to irony and sarcasm detection,”Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 32, no. 23, pp. 17 309–17 320, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Generalizable Sarcasm Detection Is Just Around The Corner, Of Course!

    H. Jang and D. Frassinelli, “Generalizable sarcasm detection is just around the corner, of course!”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06357, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    We usually don’t like going to the dentist: Using common sense to detect irony on twitter,

    C. Van Hee, E. Lefever, and V . Hoste, “We usually don’t like going to the dentist: Using common sense to detect irony on twitter,”Computational Linguistics, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 793–832, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Semeval-2022 task 6: isarcasmeval, intended sarcasm detection in english and arabic,

    I. A. Farha, S. Oprea, S. Wilson, and W. Magdy, “Semeval-2022 task 6: isarcasmeval, intended sarcasm detection in english and arabic,” inThe 16th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2022, pp. 802–814

    2022

  2. [10]

    Semeval-2018 task 3: Irony detection in english tweets,

    C. Van Hee, E. Lefever, and V . Hoste, “Semeval-2018 task 3: Irony detection in english tweets,” inProceedings of the 12th international workshop on semantic evaluation, 2018, pp. 39–50

    2018

  3. [11]

    Harnessing the power of llms in practice: A survey on chatgpt and beyond,

    J. Yang, H. Jin, R. Tang, X. Han, Q. Feng, H. Jiang, S. Zhong, B. Yin, and X. Hu, “Harnessing the power of llms in practice: A survey on chatgpt and beyond,”ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 1–32, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Language models are few-shot learners,

    T. B. Brown, “Language models are few-shot learners,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165, 2020

    2005 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Chainlm: Empowering large language models with improved chain-of-thought prompting,

    X. Cheng, J. Li, W. X. Zhao, and J.-R. Wen, “Chainlm: Empowering large language models with improved chain-of-thought prompting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14312, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,

    J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, F. Xia, E. Chi, Q. V . Le, D. Zhouet al., “Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 24 824–24 837, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Unlocking the potential of chatgpt: A comprehensive explo- ration of its applications, advantages, limitations, and future directions in natural language processing,

    W. Hariri, “Unlocking the potential of chatgpt: A comprehensive explo- ration of its applications, advantages, limitations, and future directions in natural language processing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02017, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,

    L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Rayet al., “Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 27 730–27 744, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Chatgpt: A comprehensive review on background, applica- tions, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope,

    P. P. Ray, “Chatgpt: A comprehensive review on background, applica- tions, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope,”Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems, vol. 3, pp. 121–154, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with chatgpt,

    J. White, Q. Fu, S. Hays, M. Sandborn, C. Olea, H. Gilbert, A. El- nashar, J. Spencer-Smith, and D. C. Schmidt, “A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with chatgpt,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11382, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Chatgpt is a remarkable tool—for experts,

    A. Azaria, R. Azoulay, and S. Reches, “Chatgpt is a remarkable tool—for experts,”Data Intelligence, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 240–296, 2024. 14

    2024

  12. [20]

    Parsing-based sarcasm sentiment recognition in twitter data,

    S. K. Bharti, K. S. Babu, and S. K. Jena, “Parsing-based sarcasm sentiment recognition in twitter data,” inProceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining 2015, 2015, pp. 1373–1380

    2015

  13. [21]

    Sarcasm as contrast between a positive sentiment and negative situa- tion,

    E. Riloff, A. Qadir, P. Surve, L. De Silva, N. Gilbert, and R. Huang, “Sarcasm as contrast between a positive sentiment and negative situa- tion,” inProceedings of the 2013 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, 2013, pp. 704–714

    2013

  14. [22]

    Using lexical resources for irony and sarcasm classification,

    M. Mladenovi ´c, C. Krstev, J. Mitrovi´c, and R. Stankovi ´c, “Using lexical resources for irony and sarcasm classification,” inProceedings of the 8th Balkan Conference in Informatics, 2017, pp. 1–8

    2017

  15. [23]

    Identifying sar- casm in twitter: a closer look,

    R. Gonz ´alez-Ib´anez, S. Muresan, and N. Wacholder, “Identifying sar- casm in twitter: a closer look,” inProceedings of the 49th annual meet- ing of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, 2011, pp. 581–586

    2011

  16. [24]

    Who cares about sarcastic tweets? investigating the impact of sarcasm on sentiment analysis,

    D. G. Maynard and M. A. Greenwood, “Who cares about sarcastic tweets? investigating the impact of sarcasm on sentiment analysis,” in Lrec 2014 proceedings. ELRA, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Sar- casm and irony detection in english tweets,

    J. Dimovska, M. Angelovska, D. Gjorgjevikj, and G. Madjarov, “Sar- casm and irony detection in english tweets,” inICT Innovations 2018. Engineering and Life Sciences: 10th International Conference, ICT Inno- vations 2018, Ohrid, Macedonia, September 17–19, 2018, Proceedings

    2018

  18. [26]

    Springer, 2018, pp. 120–131

    2018

  19. [27]

    Detecting irony and sarcasm in microblogs: The role of expressive signals and ensemble classifiers,

    E. Fersini, F. A. Pozzi, and E. Messina, “Detecting irony and sarcasm in microblogs: The role of expressive signals and ensemble classifiers,” in2015 IEEE international conference on data science and advanced analytics (DSAA). IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–8

    2015

  20. [28]

    Applying basic fea- tures from sentiment analysis for automatic irony detection,

    I. Hern ´andez-Far´ıas, J.-M. Bened ´ı, and P. Rosso, “Applying basic fea- tures from sentiment analysis for automatic irony detection,” inPattern Recognition and Image Analysis: 7th Iberian Conference, IbPRIA 2015, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, June 17-19, 2015, Proceedings ...

    2015

  21. [29]

    Towards a contextual pragmatic model to detect irony in tweets,

    J. Karoui, F. Benamara, V . Moriceau, N. Aussenac-Gilles, and L. H. Belguith, “Towards a contextual pragmatic model to detect irony in tweets,” in53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2015), vol. 2. ACL: Association for Computational Linguis...

    2015

  22. [30]

    Empirical study of shallow and deep learning models for sarcasm detection using context in benchmark datasets,

    A. Kumar and G. Garg, “Empirical study of shallow and deep learning models for sarcasm detection using context in benchmark datasets,” Journal of ambient intelligence and humanized computing, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 5327–5342, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Irony detection with atten- tive recurrent neural networks,

    Y .-H. Huang, H.-H. Huang, and H.-H. Chen, “Irony detection with atten- tive recurrent neural networks,” inAdvances in Information Retrieval: 39th European Conference on IR Research, ECIR 2017, Aberdeen, UK, April 8-13, 2017, Proceedings 39. Springer, 2017, pp. 534–540

    2017

  24. [32]

    Transformer-based word embedding with cnn model to detect sarcasm and irony,

    R. Ahuja and S. C. Sharma, “Transformer-based word embedding with cnn model to detect sarcasm and irony,”Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 9379–9392, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Utilizing an attention-based lstm model for detecting sarcasm and irony in social media,

    D. Olaniyan, R. O. Ogundokun, O. P. Bernard, J. Olaniyan, R. Maskeli ¯unas, and H. B. Akande, “Utilizing an attention-based lstm model for detecting sarcasm and irony in social media,”Computers, vol. 12, no. 11, p. 231, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Leveraging chatgpt as text annotation tool for sentiment analysis,

    M. Belal, J. She, and S. Wong, “Leveraging chatgpt as text annotation tool for sentiment analysis,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17177, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    On sarcasm detection with openai gpt-based models,

    M. Gole, W.-P. Nwadiugwu, and A. Miranskyy, “On sarcasm detection with openai gpt-based models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04642, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Generative pre-trained transformer (gpt) models for irony detection and classification,

    M. U. Aytekin and O. A. Erdem, “Generative pre-trained transformer (gpt) models for irony detection and classification,” in2023 4th In- ternational Informatics and Software Engineering Conference (IISEC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–8

    2023

  29. [37]

    Improving language understanding by generative pre- training,

    A. Radford, “Improving language understanding by generative pre- training,” 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Language models are unsupervised multitask learners,

    A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, I. Sutskeveret al., “Language models are unsupervised multitask learners,”OpenAI blog, vol. 1, no. 8, p. 9, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners,

    T. Kojima, S. S. Gu, M. Reid, Y . Matsuo, and Y . Iwasawa, “Large lan- guage models are zero-shot reasoners,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 22 199–22 213, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models,

    X. Wang, J. Wei, D. Schuurmans, Q. Le, E. Chi, S. Narang, A. Chowdh- ery, and D. Zhou, “Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models,

    Z. Zhang, A. Zhang, M. Li, and A. Smola, “Automatic chain of thought prompting in large language models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03493, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models,

    S. Yao, D. Yu, J. Zhao, I. Shafran, T. Griffiths, Y . Cao, and K. Narasimhan, “Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Large language model guided tree-of-thought,

    J. Long, “Large language model guided tree-of-thought,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08291, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Using tree-of-thought prompting to boost chatgpt’s reason- ing,

    D. Hulbert, “Using tree-of-thought prompting to boost chatgpt’s reason- ing,” 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Generated knowledge prompting for commonsense reasoning,

    J. Liu, A. Liu, X. Lu, S. Welleck, P. West, R. L. Bras, Y . Choi, and H. Hajishirzi, “Generated knowledge prompting for commonsense reasoning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08387, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Large language models as optimizers,

    C. Yang, X. Wang, Y . Lu, H. Liu, Q. V . Le, D. Zhou, and X. Chen, “Large language models as optimizers,” 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Promptbreeder: Self-referential self-improvement via prompt evolution,

    C. Fernando, D. Banarse, H. Michalewski, S. Osindero, and T. Rockt ¨aschel, “Promptbreeder: Self-referential self-improvement via prompt evolution,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16797, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Large language models are human-level prompt engineers,

    Y . Zhou, A. I. Muresanu, Z. Han, K. Paster, S. Pitis, H. Chan, and J. Ba, “Large language models are human-level prompt engineers,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01910, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Prewrite: Prompt rewriting with reinforcement learning,

    W. Kong, S. A. Hombaiah, M. Zhang, Q. Mei, and M. Bendersky, “Prewrite: Prompt rewriting with reinforcement learning,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.08189, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners,

    J. Wei, M. Bosma, V . Y . Zhao, K. Guu, A. W. Yu, B. Lester, N. Du, A. M. Dai, and Q. V . Le, “Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization,

    V . Sanh, A. Webson, C. Raffel, S. H. Bach, L. Sutawika, Z. Alyafeai, A. Chaffin, A. Stiegler, T. L. Scao, A. Rajaet al., “Multitask prompted training enables zero-shot task generalization,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08207, 2021

    arXiv

  44. [53]

    Creating and characterizing a diverse corpus of sarcasm in dialogue,

    S. Oraby, V . Harrison, L. Reed, E. Hernandez, E. Riloff, and M. Walker, “Creating and characterizing a diverse corpus of sarcasm in dialogue,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.05404, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Humans require context to infer ironic intent (so computers probably do, too),

    B. C. Wallace, L. Kertz, E. Charniaket al., “Humans require context to infer ironic intent (so computers probably do, too),” inProceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), 2014, pp. 512–516

    2014

  46. [55]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, “Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach,

    Y . Liu, “Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692, 2019

    1907 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Mpnet: Masked and permuted pre-training for language understanding,

    K. Song, X. Tan, T. Qin, J. Lu, and T.-Y . Liu, “Mpnet: Masked and permuted pre-training for language understanding,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 33, pp. 16 857–16 867, 2020

    2020

  49. [58]

    A survey in automatic irony process- ing: Linguistic, cognitive, and multi-x perspectives,

    Q. Zeng and A.-R. Li, “A survey in automatic irony process- ing: Linguistic, cognitive, and multi-x perspectives,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.04712, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Shalev-Shwartz and S

    S. Shalev-Shwartz and S. Ben-David,Understanding machine learning: From theory to algorithms. Cambridge university press, 2014

    2014

  51. [60]

    Machine reasoning: Technology, dilemma and future,

    N. Duan, D. Tang, and M. Zhou, “Machine reasoning: Technology, dilemma and future,” inProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Em- pirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Tutorial Abstracts, 2020, pp. 1–6

    2020

  52. [61]

    Studying irony detection beyond ironic criticism: Let’s include ironic praise,

    R. Bruntsch and W. Ruch, “Studying irony detection beyond ironic criticism: Let’s include ironic praise,”Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 8, p. 606, 2017

    2017

  53. [62]

    Meta prompting for agi systems,

    Y . Zhang, “Meta prompting for agi systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11482, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Plan- and-solve prompting: improving zero-shot chain-of-thought reasoning by large language models (2023),

    L. Wang, W. Xu, Y . Lan, Z. Hu, Y . Lan, R. Lee, and E. Lim, “Plan- and-solve prompting: improving zero-shot chain-of-thought reasoning by large language models (2023),”arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04091, 2024

    2023 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Simplification of flesch reading ease formula

    J. N. Farr, J. J. Jenkins, and D. G. Paterson, “Simplification of flesch reading ease formula.”Journal of applied psychology, vol. 35, no. 5, p. 333, 1951

    1951

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.