Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

Jokes Aside: Measuring the Semantic Distance of Double Meanings

Fabio De Ponte

Published

Aug 21, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

35% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Aug 21, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

Automatic Metrics

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Large language models have significantly enriched the toolkit for computational humor research, particularly in the automated generation of jokes and puns. A key innovation, contextual embedding vectors, offers new opportunities to revisit and refine earlier hypotheses. Notably, Petrovic and Matthews (2013) proposed a joke generation model based on the scheme "I like my X like I like my Y, Z" (e.g. "I like my ice like I like my dreams, crushed"). They suggested that joke hilarity increases with: a) frequent association of Z with X and Y, b) rarity of Z, c) ambiguity of Z, and d) meaning distance between X and Y. Building on this, Winters et al. (2019) proposed a set of metrics, based on Google Ngrams and Word2Vector. In this work, three out of their five metrics are revisited with word embeddings: obviousness, compatibility, and comparison. Another measure, symmetry, defined as closeness of Z to both X and Y, is introduced here for the first time. Two models were used to collect the embedding vectors (OpenAI text-embedding-3-small and MiniLM all-MiniLM-L6-v2) on three datasets: JokeJudger, Expunations, and rJokes. The last two datasets, Expunations, and rJokes, were expanded by adding paired sentences that captured the ambiguous expression at the core of each joke in its two different meanings. Results revealed that models trained on the proposed metrics performed poorly in predicting humor ratings: on JokeJudger, the best model achieved 57.1% accuracy, below the 61.5% baseline, while performance on Expunations and rJokes was even lower. Nevertheless, the symmetry metric seems consistently associated with higher-rated jokes, suggesting it may capture a necessary -though not sufficient- property of humor.

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

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large language models have significantly enriched the toolkit for computational humor research, particularly in the automated generation of jokes and puns."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Large language models have significantly enriched the toolkit for computational humor research, particularly in the automated generation of jokes and puns."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large language models have significantly enriched the toolkit for computational humor research, particularly in the automated generation of jokes and puns."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large language models have significantly enriched the toolkit for computational humor research, particularly in the automated generation of jokes and puns."

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Results revealed that models trained on the proposed metrics performed poorly in predicting humor ratings: on JokeJudger, the best model achieved 57.1% accuracy, below the 61.5% baseline, while performance on Expunations and rJokes was even lower."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

accuracy
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Large language models have significantly enriched the toolkit for computational humor research, particularly in the automated generation of jokes and puns.

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

Key takeaways

  • Large language models have significantly enriched the toolkit for computational humor research, particularly in the automated generation of jokes and puns.
  • A key innovation, contextual embedding vectors, offers new opportunities to revisit and refine earlier hypotheses.
  • Notably, Petrovic and Matthews (2013) proposed a joke generation model based on the scheme "I like my X like I like my Y, Z" (e.g.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • 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.

Recommended queries

Accuracy

Contribution summary

  • Two models were used to collect the embedding vectors (OpenAI text-embedding-3-small and MiniLM all-MiniLM-L6-v2) on three datasets: JokeJudger, Expunations, and rJokes.
  • Results revealed that models trained on the proposed metrics performed poorly in predicting humor ratings: on JokeJudger, the best model achieved 57.1% accuracy, below the 61.5% baseline, while performance on Expunations and rJokes was even…

Why it matters for eval

  • Two models were used to collect the embedding vectors (OpenAI text-embedding-3-small and MiniLM all-MiniLM-L6-v2) on three datasets: JokeJudger, Expunations, and rJokes.
  • Results revealed that models trained on the proposed metrics performed poorly in predicting humor ratings: on JokeJudger, the best model achieved 57.1% accuracy, below the 61.5% baseline, while performance on Expunations and rJokes was even…

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy