Hyewon Jang

Hyewon Jang, Diego Frassinelli

We tested the robustness of sarcasm detection models by examining their behavior when fine-tuned on four sarcasm datasets containing varying characteristics of sarcasm: label source (authors vs. third-party), domain (social media/online vs. offline conversations/dialogues), style (aggressive vs. humorous mocking). We tested their prediction performance on the same dataset (intra-dataset) and across different datasets (cross-dataset). For intra-dataset predictions, models consistently performed better when fine-tuned with third-party labels rather than with author labels. For cross-dataset predictions, most models failed to generalize well to the other datasets, implying that one type of dataset cannot represent all sorts of sarcasm with different styles and domains. Compared to the existing datasets, models fine-tuned on the new dataset we release in this work showed the highest generalizability to other datasets. With a manual inspection of the datasets and post-hoc analysis, we attributed the difficulty in generalization to the fact that sarcasm actually comes in different domains and styles. We argue that future sarcasm research should take the broad scope of sarcasm into account.

Elisa Leonardelli, Silvia Casola, Siyao Peng et al.

Many researchers have reached the conclusion that AI models should be trained to be aware of the possibility of variation and disagreement in human judgments, and evaluated as per their ability to recognize such variation. The LEWIDI series of shared tasks on Learning With Disagreements was established to promote this approach to training and evaluating AI models, by making suitable datasets more accessible and by developing evaluation methods. The third edition of the task builds on this goal by extending the LEWIDI benchmark to four datasets spanning paraphrase identification, irony detection, sarcasm detection, and natural language inference, with labeling schemes that include not only categorical judgments as in previous editions, but ordinal judgments as well. Another novelty is that we adopt two complementary paradigms to evaluate disagreement-aware systems: the soft-label approach, in which models predict population-level distributions of judgments, and the perspectivist approach, in which models predict the interpretations of individual annotators. Crucially, we moved beyond standard metrics such as cross-entropy, and tested new evaluation metrics for the two paradigms. The task attracted diverse participation, and the results provide insights into the strengths and limitations of methods to modeling variation. Together, these contributions strengthen LEWIDI as a framework and provide new resources, benchmarks, and findings to support the development of disagreement-aware technologies.