On Sarcasm Detection with OpenAI GPT-Based Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sarcasm is a form of irony that requires readers or listeners to interpret its intended meaning by considering context and social cues. Machine learning classification models have long had difficulty detecting sarcasm due to its social complexity and contradictory nature. This paper explores the applications of the Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT) models, including GPT-3, Instruct-GPT, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4, in detecting sarcasm in natural language. It tests fine-tuned and zero-shot models of different sizes and releases. The GPT models were tested on the political and balanced (pol-bal) portion of the popular Self-Annotated Reddit Corpus (SARC 2.0) sarcasm dataset. In the fine-tuning case, the largest fine-tuned GPT-3 model achieves accuracy and F1-score of 0.81, outperforming prior models. In the zero-shot case, one of GPT-4 models yields an accuracy of 0.70 and F1-score of 0.75. Other models score lower. Additionally, a model's performance may improve or deteriorate with each release, highlighting the need to reassess performance after each release.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".