Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Sarcasm Analysis using Conversation Context

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1808.07531 v2 pith:CZ62B65V submitted 2018-08-22 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords contextconversationlstmturnsarcasticattentioncurrentmodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Computational models for sarcasm detection have often relied on the content of utterances in isolation. However, the speaker's sarcastic intent is not always apparent without additional context. Focusing on social media discussions, we investigate three issues: (1) does modeling conversation context help in sarcasm detection; (2) can we identify what part of conversation context triggered the sarcastic reply; and (3) given a sarcastic post that contains multiple sentences, can we identify the specific sentence that is sarcastic. To address the first issue, we investigate several types of Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks that can model both the conversation context and the current turn. We show that LSTM networks with sentence-level attention on context and current turn, as well as the conditional LSTM network (Rocktaschel et al. 2016), outperform the LSTM model that reads only the current turn. As conversation context, we consider the prior turn, the succeeding turn or both. Our computational models are tested on two types of social media platforms: Twitter and discussion forums. We discuss several differences between these datasets ranging from their size to the nature of the gold-label annotations. To address the last two issues, we present a qualitative analysis of attention weights produced by the LSTM models (with attention) and discuss the results compared with human performance on the two tasks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools