Sarc7: Evaluating Sarcasm Detection and Generation with Seven Types and Emotion-Informed Techniques
What it is about
The 690 sarcastic utterances of the MUStARD sitcom dataset are relabelled with seven sarcasm types taken from a classroom-discourse taxonomy: self-deprecating, brooding, deadpan, polite, obnoxious, raging and manic (four annotators, a fifth for agreement: kappa 0.67; brooding, deadpan and polite are hardest even for people). Large models (GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5, Qwen 2.5, Llama 4) are prompted to classify the type: chain-of-thought gives the best accuracy (57%), while an «emotion-based» prompt (classify the emotion of the context, then of the utterance, then judge the incongruity) gives the best macro-F1 (0.37) and helps rare types, but makes models «trigger-happy», cutting accuracy on non-sarcastic inputs by about a quarter. For generation, fixing incongruity, shock value, context dependence and emotion per type improves type accuracy by 38% over zero-shot.
Ideas
- I1. The «trigger-happy» effect is a warning for Mova's teacher prompts: asking the teacher explicitly about emotions or incongruity raises false irony labels. Keep the irony question out of the general silver prompt (
prag/src/silver.rs), or, if irony is asked for, measure the teacher's false-positive rate on a set of known sincere lines (tale lines with sincere narrator framing) before trusting it. - I2. The context-vs-utterance emotion comparison is the same signal as the emotional-shift check proposed in
ducret-2020-linguistic-features-automatic-sarcasm-detectionI1; keep it as one deterministic rule inprag/src/irony.rswith a negative control (a joyful reply to good news must not fire). No need for the seven types: with human kappa 0.67 and models at macro-F1 0.37, they are not a target for the SLM.
For Mova
34. Irony and figurative language §2, §9–10. Code: prag/src/silver.rs (teacher prompt), prag/src/irony.rs. Measures: teacher false-positive rate on sincere lines; precision of the emotional-shift rule with its negative control.
Cite
@inproceedings{xiong2025sarc7,
title = {{Sarc7: Evaluating Sarcasm Detection and Generation with Seven Types and Emotion-Informed Techniques}},
author = {Xiong, Lang and Gao, Raina and Jeong, Alyssa},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 9th Widening NLP Workshop},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.18653/v1/2025.winlp-main.25},
url = {https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.winlp-main.25}
}References
- Stephen Skalicky and Scott Crossley. 2018. Linguistic features of sarcasm and metaphor production quality. Proceedings of the Workshop on Figurative Language Processing. find
- Anthropic. 2024. The claude 3 model family: Opus, sonnet, haiku. Anthropic Report. find
- Prasanna Biswas, Anupama Ray, and Pushpak Bhattacharyya. 2019. Computational model for understanding emotions in sarcasm: A survey. CFILT Technical Report, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay. find
- Santiago Castro, Devamanyu Hazarika, Verónica Pérez-Rosas, Roger Zimmermann, Rada Mihalcea, and Soujanya Poria. 2019. Towards multimodal sarcasm detection (an _Obviously_ perfect paper). In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4619–4629, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. find
- Google DeepMind, Rohan Anil, Stefano Arolfo, Igor Babuschkin, Lucas Beyer, Maarten Bosma, and ... 2023. Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805. ↗
- Paul Ekman. 1992. Are there basic emotions? Psychological Review, 99(3). find
- Montgomery Gole, Williams-Paul Nwadiugwu, and Andriy Miranskyy. 2024. On sarcasm detection with openai gpt-based models. In 2024 34th International Conference on Collaborative Advances in Software and COmputiNg (CASCON), pages 1–6. IEEE. find
- Nivin A Helal, Ahmed Hassan, Nagwa L Badr, and Yasmine M Afify. 2024. A contextual-based approach for sarcasm detection. Scientific Reports, 14(1):15415. find
- Joshua Lee, Wyatt Fong, Alexander Le, Sur Shah, Kevin Han, and Kevin Zhu. 2024. Pragmatic metacognitive prompting improves llm performance on sarcasm detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04509. ↗
- John S Leggitt and Raymond W Gibbs. 2000. Emotional reactions to verbal irony. Discourse processes, 29(1):1–24. find
- Meta AI. 2024. Llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-original. Hugging Face Model Hub: https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/ Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Original. Accessed: 2025-06-27. ↗
- OpenAI. 2024. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276. ↗
- Sawsan Abdul-Muneim Qasim. 2021. A critical pragmatic study of sarcasm in american and british social interviews. Journal of Strategic Research in Social Science. find
- Ellen Riloff, Aditya Qadir, Prajakta Surve, Lakshika De Silva, Nisheeth Gilbert, and Ruihong Huang. 2013. Sarcasm as contrast between a positive sentiment and negative situation. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 704–714. ACL. find our card
- Qwen Team. 2024. Qwen2.5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115. ↗
- Ben Yao, Yazhou Zhang, Qiuchi Li, and Jing Qin. 2024. Is sarcasm detection a step-by-step reasoning process in large language models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12725. ↗
- Yazhou Zhang, Chunwang Zou, Zheng Lian, Prayag Tiwari, and Jing Qin. 2024. Sarcasmbench: Towards evaluating large language models on sarcasm understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.11319. ↗
- Xingjie Zhuang, Fengling Zhou, and Zhixin Li. 2025. Multi-modal sarcasm detection via knowledge-aware focused graph convolutional networks. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications. find
- Ari Tantra Zuhri and Rakhmat Wahyudin Sagala. 2022. Irony and sarcasm detection on public figure speech. Journal of Elementary School Education, 1(1):41–45. find
This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/xiong-2025-sarc7-evaluating-sarcasm-detection-generation/