Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

MemeReaCon: Probing Contextual Meme Understanding in Large Vision-Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read MemeReaCon, a benchmark from Reddit posts, shows that leading vision-language models cannot reliably connect a meme to its conversational context; even the strongest model labels text-meme relations well but fails to infer the poster's…

desk verdict Useful new benchmark for contextual meme understanding, but the generative-task evidence needs a human baseline before the headline claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17433 v2 pith:X7MDW43N submitted 2025-05-23 cs.AI

Zhengyi Zhao , Shubo Zhang , Yuxi Zhang , Yanxi Zhao , Yifan Zhang , Zezhong Wang , Huimin Wang , Yutian Zhao
show 5 more authors
Bin Liang Yefeng Zheng Binyang Li Kam-Fai Wong Xian Wu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords memeunderstandinglargevision-languagemodelscontextualreasoningbenchmarkmultimodalRedditpostintentcontext-memeinterplay
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to test whether large vision-language models understand memes the way people do online: as images whose meaning is set by the post text, community norms, and comment reactions around them. It introduces MemeReaCon, a benchmark of 1,565 Reddit posts from five communities, each annotated for how the text and meme work together, the poster's intent, the meme's structure, and the community's response. Across ten models, the best performer, Gemini-2.5-Pro, reaches 83.21% accuracy on classifying the context-meme relationship but only 44.86% ROUGE-L, a standard lexical-overlap score, on generating the poster's intent. The authors conclude that current models either miss critical contextual cues or fixate on visual detail while overlooking communicative purpose, and they offer MemeReaCon as a diagnostic tool and a challenge for context-aware multimodal understanding.

What carries the argument

The central object is the annotated instance format: a meme image kept together with its original post title and body and the highest-voted comment, labeled along five dimensions, including Context-Meme Interplay (whether the text explains the meme or the meme enhances the text) and Post Intent. The carrying mechanism is the task suite built on these labels, two classification tasks and two generation tasks, plus the Context Relevance Score, which measures semantic overlap between a model's response and the post text, image, and comments using BERTScore. The gap between the classification scores and the generation scores is the paper's evidence that models can spot surface-level text-image relations without integrating them into a communicative reading.

What would settle it

Re-annotate a random sample of 100 to 200 MemeReaCon instances with a new, larger pool of annotators drawn from the five subreddit communities, hiding the original labels; if agreement with the original majority-vote labels falls below substantial agreement, the reported model scores partly measure one small annotator pool's conventions rather than general contextual understanding.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MemeReaCon's core claim is that contextual meme understanding should be evaluated with the meme held in its original post: image, post text, and top community comment together, annotated along five dimensions: context-meme interplay, meme type, comment stance and affective consistency, post connection, and post intent. Evaluated zero-shot on four tasks, current vision-language models show a persistent asymmetry: they perform reasonably on classifying whether the context explains the meme or the meme enhances the context, but much worse on generating the logical connections and the poster's communicative intent. Error analysis and ablations show that models frequently ignore context or over-weight visual detail; removing the image costs more than removing the text; and culturally specific communities such as programmer-humor and British-meme subreddits produce larger performance drops, especially on the generative tasks. The authors present this as evidence that current models lack robust contextual integration and that MemeReaCon exposes that gap.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's scores assume that the majority-vote labels produced by six PhD annotators are the correct poster intent and context-meme relationship, even though the paper's Limitations section concedes that post-connection annotation was less consistent and that meme interpretation depends on annotators' cultural background.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Zero-shot evaluations that present a meme without its post title, body, and community comments will overstate a model's ability to handle memes as they actually appear online.
  • Content moderation and social-analytics systems that rely on current vision-language models to judge why a meme was posted will be unreliable, since even the best model tested scores below 45% ROUGE-L on post-intent generation.
  • Improving contextual meme understanding will require methods that bind post text and comments into the visual reasoning loop; simply scaling the vision backbone or adding chain-of-thought gives only small gains on the generative tasks.
  • Performance on the classification tasks does not predict performance on explanation or intent generation, so benchmarks should report both or risk masking the gap.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An untested implication of the image-removal results is that models could be trained to reason from the text and the image separately before joining them, since the ablation shows the image dominates the score while part of the intent lives in the post text.
  • A natural external-validity check, implied by the paper's Limitations section, is to re-annotate a subset with a larger and more community-diverse pool; if the labels shift, model rankings on MemeReaCon partly measure one small annotator pool's conventions rather than general contextual understanding.
  • The context-meme interplay distinction could be reused as a lightweight pretraining signal for multimodal models, because it is a two-way choice that forces a model to decide which modality carries the communicative load.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. Zhao et al. introduce MemeReaCon, a benchmark of 1,565 Reddit meme posts that preserves the post title/body, the meme image, and the top community comment. The benchmark annotates five dimensions (Context-Meme Interplay, Meme Type, Comment Stance and Affective Consistency, Post Connection, and Post Intent) and defines four evaluation tasks: CMI-C, CSAC-C, PC-G, and PI-G. The authors evaluate a range of unimodal baselines, VLMs, and vision reasoning models, and report that models perform moderately on categorical tasks but poorly on generative tasks, with Gemini-2.5-pro achieving 83.21% accuracy on CMI-C but only 44.86% ROUGE-L on PI-G. Modality ablations suggest that removing the image hurts performance more than removing the text. The paper concludes that current LVLMs either fail to interpret critical contextual information or over-focus on visual details while missing communicative purpose. The Limitations section honestly acknowledges subjectivity in meme interpretation and inconsistency in post-connection annotation.

Significance. If the evaluation is reliable, MemeReaCon fills a genuine gap by measuring contextual meme understanding rather than isolated meme classification or captioning. The multi-dimensional annotation scheme, the inclusion of community-specific subreddits, the breadth of evaluated models, and the explicit error analysis are all strengths, as is the candid discussion of annotation limitations. The comparative finding that models handle categorical context-meme relationships better than free-form connection and intent generation is plausible and worth publishing. However, the central claim currently rests on generative-task scores whose gold references are not demonstrated to be a stable human standard, and one ablation table is internally inconsistent. These issues are addressable and do not invalidate the benchmark's potential value, but they need to be fixed before the strength of the stated conclusion is warranted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3; Section 4.2; Tables 2, 9, 10] The central claim that models 'fail' at PC-G and PI-G depends on comparing free-form model outputs to gold references, but the manuscript never establishes that those references are a stable standard. Section 3.3 defines Post Connection and Post Intent as free-form key points and sentences, yet it reports Fleiss kappa values for PC (0.79) and PI (0.81) and says disagreements were resolved by majority vote; Fleiss kappa and majority voting are not defined for free text. No human-reference agreement (e.g., ROUGE-L or BERTScore between two independently written human references) is reported for PC-G or PI-G. Given the Limitations section's own concession that post-connection annotation was 'less consistent' and that meme interpretation depends on annotator background, the low PI-G ROUGE-L of 44.86 for Gemini-2.5-pro cannot yet be interpreted as model failure rather than as agreement with one particular annotator's phrasing. Please clarify the categorical coding used for the kappa computation, specify the rule for aggregating free-text annotations, and report human-reference agreement or a chance baseline for both generative tasks.
  2. [Section D.5; Table 14] Table 14 is internally inconsistent with Table 2. In Table 14, the Original row for the left model block lists PC-G R-L 60.38 and PI-G R-L 44.86, which are exactly Gemini-2.5-pro's values in Table 2, while the right block lists 38.92 and 20.43, which match InternVL3's Table 2 values. The D.5 text attributes a 34.28% drop on PC-G after image removal to Qwen2.5-VL, but Qwen2.5-VL's original PC-G R-L in Table 2 is 31.27, so that delta is not reproducible as printed. The modality-contribution claims, including the conclusion that image removal hurts more than text removal, need to be re-run and reported with correctly aligned model labels and original scores.
  3. [Section 4.2; Eq. (1); Figure 5] The Context Relevance Score (CRS) introduced in Eq. (1) is used as evidence for the contextual-integration bottleneck, but it depends on two unvalidated free choices: a BERTScore relevance threshold of 0.7 and a difficulty weight w_i whose functional form is not specified. No sensitivity analysis is reported for either choice, and no human judgment is used to validate that CRS measures cross-contextual integration. The cross-model ranking in Figure 5 is therefore not robust support for the paper's central claim; either define and validate these parameters, provide a sensitivity analysis, or rely primarily on the more direct task scores and ablations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.1] The text says '10 diverse state-of-the-art models spanning three architectural paradigms, alongside two unimodal baselines,' but Table 2 lists 12 base models plus two inference variants (CoT and SC); please clarify the model count.
  2. [Section D.4; Table 13] The text states that Gemini-2.5-Pro 'achieves 76.1% accuracy' and '52.0% accuracy' on PI-G, but Table 13 reports ROUGE-L percentages, not accuracy; please correct the metric label in the prose.
  3. [Table 2] The model name 'LLaV A-OneVision' should be 'LLaVA-OneVision'.
  4. [Section 3.1; Table 3] The text says five subreddits are selected and lists r/memes and r/meme separately, while Table 3 and Figure 3 merge them into 'r/meme(s)'; please clarify whether these are treated as one community or two.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MemeReaCon's central conclusion is an empirical evaluation against independent human annotations, not a derivation from its own definitions.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing assertion—that LVLMs either fail to interpret critical contextual information or over-focus on visual details—is an empirical evaluation claim. It is obtained by scoring zero-shot model responses against human-authored gold labels (CMI-C, CSAC-C, PC-G, PI-G), and those labels were produced by the annotators described in Section 3.3, independently of the model evaluations in Section 4. No parameter is fitted to model outputs and then renamed a prediction; no uniqueness theorem or prior derivation by the same authors is invoked to force the benchmark design. The only overlapping-author citation (Wang et al., 2024, in the Introduction) is non-load-bearing related work, not the basis for any result. The limitations acknowledged in the paper—lower consistency for post-connection annotations and dependence of meme interpretation on annotator background—are validity and reliability concerns that could weaken the gold standard, but they do not make the evaluation circular, because the labels are external to the models being tested. Likewise, the absence of human-reference agreement for PC-G/PI-G and the apparent internal inconsistency in Table 14 (Section D.5, where Qwen2.5-VL's 'Original' row shows Gemini-2.5-pro's Table 2 values) are reproducibility and evidence-quality issues, not reductions of the conclusions to the paper's own inputs. The taxonomy (CMI, MT, CSAC, PC, PI) is an annotation scheme, not a fitted result, and the CRS metric is a defined measurement rather than a parameter learned from the data. I therefore find no circular step that meets the required evidentiary standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central evaluation rests on several domain assumptions about annotation validity, comment representativeness, and contamination, plus two hand-made components in the CRS metric. These are reasonable for a first benchmark but are untested; the paper's own Limitations section acknowledges the subjectivity of the gold labels.

free parameters (2)
  • CRS relevance threshold = 0.7
    Hand-chosen BERTScore threshold in Eq. 1 determines whether a response is considered relevant to a contextual element; no sensitivity analysis is reported, and Figure 5 depends on it.
  • CRS difficulty weight w_i = unspecified
    The paper defines w_i only as a difficulty weight based on the number of contextual elements requiring integration; the exact mapping is not given, so the CRS values are not reproducible.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The single highest-voted, non-deleted comment is an adequate proxy for the community's interpretation of the post.
    Section 3.2 selects one comment per post and feeds it into all tasks; one comment cannot represent the full range of community reactions, yet the benchmark claims to preserve 'how the community responded.'
  • domain assumption A binary CEM/MEC taxonomy captures the essential relationship between post text and meme.
    Section 3.3 defines only 'Context Explain Meme' and 'Meme Enhance Context'; the Limitations section admits that annotators disagreed on post connections, so real posts may mix or resist both categories.
  • domain assumption Majority vote among three annotators yields valid ground truth for poster intent and meme interpretation.
    Section 3.3 labels each instance with three annotators and majority vote; the Limitations section concedes that interpretation depends heavily on annotator background, so the gold standard is annotator-relative.
  • domain assumption Zero-shot performance on public Reddit memes is not inflated by training-data contamination.
    Section 4.1 evaluates on public posts from 2022 to 2025; the paper does not test whether the 10 models memorized these exact posts during pretraining, which would weaken the diagnostic conclusion.
  • domain assumption BERTScore and ROUGE-L against a single gold reference are valid measures for generative tasks.
    Section 4.1 uses one annotator-derived reference per sample; valid alternative phrasings of connections or intent are penalized, and no multi-reference evaluation is reported.
  • ad hoc to paper The CRS metric in Eq. 1 measures cross-contextual integration.
    Section 4.2 introduces CRS with threshold 0.7 and weights w_i, and Figure 5 uses it to conclude that VRMs integrate context better; the metric is defined in this paper only and is not anchored to any prior benchmark.
invented entities (1)
  • Context Relevance Score (CRS)
    purpose: Quantifies how well a model response integrates the post text, meme image, and comment context.
    Defined in Section 4.2 with a hand-chosen BERTScore threshold of 0.7 and an unspecified difficulty weight w_i; no external benchmark or sensitivity analysis validates it, so it can only assert, not confirm, the paper's integration-failure narrative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MemeReaCon: Probing Contextual Meme Understanding in Large Vision-Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X7MDW43N

@misc{pith2026250517433,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MemeReaCon: Probing Contextual Meme Understanding in Large Vision-Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X7MDW43N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17433}
}
read the original abstract

Memes have emerged as a popular form of multimodal online communication, where their interpretation heavily depends on the specific context in which they appear. Current approaches predominantly focus on isolated meme analysis, either for harmful content detection or standalone interpretation, overlooking a fundamental challenge: the same meme can express different intents depending on its conversational context. This oversight creates an evaluation gap: although humans intuitively recognize how context shapes meme interpretation, Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) can hardly understand context-dependent meme intent. To address this critical limitation, we introduce MemeReaCon, a novel benchmark specifically designed to evaluate how LVLMs understand memes in their original context. We collected memes from five different Reddit communities, keeping each meme's image, the post text, and user comments together. We carefully labeled how the text and meme work together, what the poster intended, how the meme is structured, and how the community responded. Our tests with leading LVLMs show a clear weakness: models either fail to interpret critical information in the contexts, or overly focus on visual details while overlooking communicative purpose. MemeReaCon thus serves both as a diagnostic tool exposing current limitations and as a challenging benchmark to drive development toward more sophisticated LVLMs of the context-aware understanding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17433 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Demo illustrating how a single meme’s inter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cases of each annotation scheme. Top-side (I) and (II) represent the label of Context-Meme Interplay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Statistics of our MemeReaCon. Our MemeReaCon benchmark comprises 1,565 annotated instances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of a meme in MemeReaCon. – Comics: Multi-panel narrative structure. – Combination: Multi-type figures are combined together to perform the unitary meaning. • Comment Stance and Affective Consistence (CSAC): stance to assess the relationship be￾tween the top com…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Context relevance scores across model categories, measuring how effectively models integrate information [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of some cases in error. The green text indicates the correct answer. The red text indicates the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of our proposed MemeReaCon (1/3). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Examples of our proposed MemeReaCon (2/3). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Examples of our proposed MemeReaCon (3/3). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Performance gap between high-text and low-text memes across model categories. Positive values indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distribution of error types across model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Error cases for Context error and Visual error. The green text indicates the correct answer compared with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Error cases for Semantic error and Culture error. The green text indicates the correct answer compared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. MemeCMD: An Automatically Generated Chinese Multi-turn Dialogue Dataset with Contextually Retrieved Memes

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    MemeCMD is an auto-generated Chinese multi-turn dialogue dataset with context-retrieved memes, built from a 6,023-meme MLLM-annotated library and dual-agent dialogues.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Marah Abdin, Jyoti Aneja, Harkirat Behl, S \'e bastien Bubeck, Ronen Eldan, Suriya Gunasekar, Michael Harrison, Russell J Hewett, Mojan Javaheripi, Piero Kauffmann, and et al. 2024. Phi-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.08905

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jeff Donahue, Pauline Luc, Antoine Miech, Iain Barr, Yana Hasson, Karel Lenc, Arthur Mensch, Katherine Millican, Malcolm Reynolds, and et al. 2022. Flamingo: a visual language model for few-shot learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:23716--23736

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Anthropic. 2025. Claude 3.7 sonnet and claude code. https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-7-sonnet

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Shuai Bai, Keqin Chen, Xuejing Liu, Jialin Wang, Wenbin Ge, Sibo Song, Kai Dang, Peng Wang, Shijie Wang, Jun Tang, and et al. 2025. Qwen2. 5-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    subverting the jewtocracy

    Mohit Chandra, Dheeraj Pailla, Himanshu Bhatia, Aadilmehdi Sanchawala, Manish Gupta, Manish Shrivastava, and Ponnurangam Kumaraguru. 2021. “subverting the jewtocracy”: Online antisemitism detection using multimodal deep learning. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021, pages 148--157

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Zhe Chen, Jiannan Wu, Wenhai Wang, Weijie Su, Guo Chen, Sen Xing, Muyan Zhong, Qinglong Zhang, Xizhou Zhu, Lewei Lu, and et al. 2024. Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 24185--24198

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Google DeepMind. 2025. Gemini 2.5 pro: Best for coding and complex prompts. https://deepmind.google/technologies/gemini/pro/

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Elisabetta Fersini, Francesca Gasparini, Giulia Rizzi, Aurora Saibene, Berta Chulvi, Paolo Rosso, Alyssa Lees, and Jeffrey Sorensen. 2022. Semeval-2022 task 5: Multimedia automatic misogyny identification. In Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2022), pages 533--549

    2022

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Ming Shan Hee, Wen-Haw Chong, and Roy Ka-Wei Lee. 2023. Decoding the underlying meaning of multimodal hateful memes. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 5995--6003

    2023

  2. [10]

    Ming Shan Hee, Roy Ka-Wei Lee, and Wen-Haw Chong. 2022. On explaining multimodal hateful meme detection models. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, pages 3651--3655

    2022

  3. [11]

    Jianzhao Huang, Hongzhan Lin, Liu Ziyan, Ziyang Luo, Guang Chen, and Jing Ma. 2024. Towards low-resource harmful meme detection with lmm agents. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2269--2293

    2024

  4. [12]

    Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, and et al. 2024. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    EunJeong Hwang and Vered Shwartz. 2023. Memecap: A dataset for captioning and interpreting memes. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1433--1445

    2023

  6. [14]

    Douwe Kiela, Suvrat Bhooshan, Hamed Firooz, Ethan Perez, and Davide Testuggine. 2019. Supervised multimodal bitransformers for classifying images and text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.02950

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Douwe Kiela, Hamed Firooz, Aravind Mohan, Vedanuj Goswami, Amanpreet Singh, Pratik Ringshia, and Davide Testuggine. 2020. The hateful memes challenge: Detecting hate speech in multimodal memes. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:2611--2624

    2020

  8. [16]

    Aleksi Knuutila, Anna George, Jonathan Bright, Anna George, and Philip Howard. 2024. The spread of anti-vaccination memes on facebook. In Multidisciplinary International Symposium on Disinformation in Open Online Media, pages 86--100. Springer

    2024

  9. [17]

    Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Dong Guo, Renrui Zhang, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Kaichen Zhang, Peiyuan Zhang, Yanwei Li, Ziwei Liu, and et al. 2024. Llava-onevision: Easy visual task transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03326

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hongzhan Lin, Ziyang Luo, Bo Wang, Ruichao Yang, and Jing Ma. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.01523 Goat-bench: Safety insights to large multimodal models through meme-based social abuse . Preprint, arXiv:2401.01523

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Phillip Lippe, Nithin Holla, Shantanu Chandra, Santhosh Rajamanickam, Georgios Antoniou, Ekaterina Shutova, and Helen Yannakoudakis. 2020. A multimodal framework for the detection of hateful memes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.12871

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Chen Liu, Gregor Geigle, Robin Krebs, and Iryna Gurevych. 2022. Figmemes: A dataset for figurative language identification in politically-opinionated memes. In Proceedings of the 2022 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 7069--7086

    2022

  13. [21]

    Ryan M Milner. 2012. The world made meme: Discourse and identity in participatory media

    2012

  14. [22]

    Jeongsik Park, Khoi PN Nguyen, Terrence Li, Suyesh Shrestha, Megan Kim Vu, Jerry Yining Wang, and Vincent Ng. 2024. Memeintent: Benchmarking intent description generation for memes. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialog...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Shraman Pramanick, Dimitar Dimitrov, Rituparna Mukherjee, Shivam Sharma, Md Shad Akhtar, Preslav Nakov, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2021 a . Detecting harmful memes and their targets. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 2783--2796

    2021

  16. [24]

    Shraman Pramanick, Shivam Sharma, Dimitar Dimitrov, Md Shad Akhtar, Preslav Nakov, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2021 b . Momenta: A multimodal framework for detecting harmful memes and their targets. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 4439--4455

    2021

  17. [25]

    Qwen. 2024. Qvq: To see the world with wisdom. https://qwenlm.github.io/blog/qvq-72b-preview/

    2024

  18. [26]

    Shivam Sharma, Siddhant Agarwal, Tharun Suresh, Preslav Nakov, Md Shad Akhtar, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2023. What do you meme? generating explanations for visual semantic role labelling in memes. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, page...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Shivam Sharma, Tharun Suresh, Atharva Kulkarni, Himanshi Mathur, Preslav Nakov, Md Shad Akhtar, and Tanmoy Chakraborty. 2022. Findings of the constraint 2022 shared task on detecting the hero, the villain, and the victim in memes. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Combating On...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Shardul Suryawanshi, Bharathi Raja Chakravarthi, Mihael Arcan, and Paul Buitelaar. 2020. Multimodal meme dataset (multioff) for identifying offensive content in image and text. In Proceedings of the second workshop on trolling, aggression and cyberbullying, pages 32--41

    2020

  21. [29]

    Riza Velioglu and Jewgeni Rose. 2020. Detecting hate speech in memes using multimodal deep learning approaches: Prize-winning solution to hateful memes challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.12975

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bingbing Wang, Shijue Huang, Bin Liang, Geng Tu, Min Yang, and Ruifeng Xu. 2024. What do they “meme”? a metaphor-aware multi-modal multi-task framework for fine-grained meme understanding. Knowledge-Based Systems, 294:111778

    2024

  23. [31]

    xAI. 2025. Grok 3: The age of reasoning agents. https://x.ai

    2025

  24. [32]

    Jin Xu, Zhifang Guo, Jinzheng He, Hangrui Hu, Ting He, Shuai Bai, Keqin Chen, Jialin Wang, Yang Fan, Kai Dang, and et al. 2025. Qwen2. 5-omni technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20215

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, and et al. 2024. Qwen2 technical report. CoRR

    2024

  26. [34]

    Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi

    Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. https://openreview.net/forum?id=SkeHuCVFDr Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with BERT . In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April...

    2020

  27. [35]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  28. [36]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.