Skip to content
AI Atlas
PaperActive

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

arxiv.org/abs/2604.15210

quality89

Updated 7 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026

paper_01M294G6JCZQEYG6WXDQ57Z4BJ

Published
11 Sept 2026
T1 · 7 h ago
arXiv
2604.15210
T1 · 7 h ago
Category
cs.AI
T1 · 7 h ago

As of

Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.

Claim history · Abstract

1 claims · 1 propertiesShow all properties

Abstractabstract1

Claim history for Abstract
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
-cross 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 improves performance across caption matching and ranking, with IRS-72B achieving the strongest model performance on ranking (76.10%), surpassing both non-expert human performance and all evaluated open- and closed-source multimodal baselines. Zero-shot transfer further shows that IRS learns generalizable reasoning patterns.currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →