Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Learning to Think Like a Cartoon Captionist: Incongruity-Resolution Supervision for Multimodal Humor Understanding

Hatice Merve Vural, Doga Kukul, Ege Erdem Ozlu, Demir Ekin Arikan, Bob Mankoff, Erkut Erdem, Aykut Erdem · Apr 16, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Provisional trust

This page is a lightweight research summary built from the abstract and metadata while deeper extraction catches up.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Provisional

Derived from abstract and metadata only.

Abstract

Humor is one of the few cognitive tasks where getting the reasoning right matters as much as getting the answer right. While recent work evaluates humor understanding on benchmarks such as the New Yorker Cartoon Caption Contest (NYCC), it largely treats it as black-box prediction, overlooking the structured reasoning processes underlying humor comprehension. We introduce IRS (Incongruity-Resolution Supervision), a framework that decomposes humor understanding into three components: incongruity modeling, which identifies mismatches in the visual scene; resolution modeling, which constructs coherent reinterpretations of these mismatches; and preference alignment, which evaluates candidate interpretations under human judgments. Grounded in incongruity-resolution theory and expert captionist practice, IRS supervises intermediate reasoning process through structured traces that make the path from visual perception to humorous interpretation explicit and learnable. Across 7B, 32B, and 72B models on NYCC, IRS outperforms strong open and closed multimodal baselines across caption matching and ranking tasks, with our largest model approaching expert-level performance on ranking. Zero-shot transfer to external benchmarks shows that IRS learns generalizable reasoning patterns. Our results suggest that supervising reasoning structure, rather than scale alone, is key for reasoning-centric tasks.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Trust level

Provisional

Usefulness score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence 0%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

provisional (inferred)

Pairwise preference, Expert verification

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"Humor is one of the few cognitive tasks where getting the reasoning right matters as much as getting the answer right."

Evaluation Modes

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Humor is one of the few cognitive tasks where getting the reasoning right matters as much as getting the answer right."

Quality Controls

provisional (inferred)

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Humor is one of the few cognitive tasks where getting the reasoning right matters as much as getting the answer right."

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Humor is one of the few cognitive tasks where getting the reasoning right matters as much as getting the answer right."

Reported Metrics

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Humor is one of the few cognitive tasks where getting the reasoning right matters as much as getting the answer right."

Rater Population

provisional (inferred)

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

"Grounded in incongruity-resolution theory and expert captionist practice, IRS supervises intermediate reasoning process through structured traces that make the path from visual perception to humorous interpretation explicit and learnable."

Human Feedback Details

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: Pairwise preference, Expert verification
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Details

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: No explicit eval keywords detected.
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Humor is one of the few cognitive tasks where getting the reasoning right matters as much as getting the answer right.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Humor is one of the few cognitive tasks where getting the reasoning right matters as much as getting the answer right.
  • While recent work evaluates humor understanding on benchmarks such as the New Yorker Cartoon Caption Contest (NYCC), it largely treats it as black-box prediction, overlooking the structured reasoning processes underlying humor comprehension.
  • We introduce IRS (Incongruity-Resolution Supervision), a framework that decomposes humor understanding into three components: incongruity modeling, which identifies mismatches in the visual scene; resolution modeling, which constructs coherent reinterpretations of these mismatches; and preference alignment, which evaluates candidate interpretations under human judgments.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.