Assessing how hyperparameters impact Large Language Models' sarcasm detection performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sarcasm detection is challenging for both humans and machines. This work explores how model characteristics impact sarcasm detection in OpenAI's GPT, and Meta's Llama-2 models, given their strong natural language understanding, and popularity. We evaluate fine-tuned and zero-shot models across various sizes, releases, and hyperparameters. Experiments were conducted on the political and balanced (pol-bal) portion of the popular Self-Annotated Reddit Corpus (SARC2.0) sarcasm dataset. Fine-tuned performance improves monotonically with model size within a model family, while hyperparameter tuning also impacts performance. In the fine-tuning scenario, full precision Llama-2-13b achieves state-of-the-art accuracy and $F_1$-score, both measured at 0.83, comparable to average human performance. In the zero-shot setting, one GPT-4 model achieves competitive performance to prior attempts, yielding an accuracy of 0.70 and an $F_1$-score of 0.75. Furthermore, a model's performance may increase or decline 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 | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".