Computational Humor with Multimodal LLMs: Methods, Datasets, Evaluation, and Challenges

Hugging Face Daily Papers Papers

Summary

This survey examines computational humor understanding in multimodal LLMs, covering methods, datasets, evaluation protocols, and challenges such as shortcut-prone evaluation and weak evidence grounding.

Multimodal humor in memes, cartoons, and comics remains difficult for AI systems because intended meaning depends on non-literal mechanisms, shared cultural knowledge, and communicative intent rather than literal scene description. This survey focuses on visual humor understanding in single-image and multi-panel artifacts, while treating humor generation as an emerging downstream frontier. We position the literature against prior humor, sarcasm, and general MLLM surveys and organize it using a capability-centric hierarchy spanning recognition, interpretation and reasoning, and generation. Under this lens, we synthesize benchmark design, evaluation protocols, and modeling paradigms, tracing the field's shift from task-specific fusion models to large-model approaches based on multimodal alignment, evidence-grounded reasoning, and controlled generation. We conclude by highlighting the main barriers to progress: shortcut-prone evaluation, limited cultural and narrative coverage, weak evidence grounding, and unresolved safety and ownership concerns.
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 07/22/26, 10:42 AM

Paper page - Computational Humor with Multimodal LLMs: Methods, Datasets, Evaluation, and Challenges

Source: https://huggingface.co/papers/2607.19011

Abstract

Multimodalhumorinmemes,cartoons,andcomicsremainsdifficultforAIsystemsbecauseintendedmeaningdependsonnon-literalmechanisms,sharedculturalknowledge,andcommunicativeintentratherthanliteralscenedescription.Thissurveyfocusesonvisualhumorunderstandinginsingle-imageandmulti-panelartifacts,whiletreatinghumorgenerationasanemergingdownstreamfrontier.Wepositiontheliteratureagainstpriorhumor,sarcasm,andgeneralMLLMsurveysandorganizeitusingacapability-centrichierarchyspanningrecognition,interpretationandreasoning,andgeneration.Underthislens,wesynthesizebenchmarkdesign,evaluationprotocols,andmodelingparadigms,tracingthefield’sshiftfromtask-specificfusionmodelstolarge-modelapproachesbasedonmultimodalalignment,evidence-groundedreasoning,andcontrolledgeneration.Weconcludebyhighlightingthemainbarrierstoprogress:shortcut-proneevaluation,limitedculturalandnarrativecoverage,weakevidencegrounding,andunresolvedsafetyandownershipconcerns.

View arXiv pageView PDFAdd to collection

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2607\.19011

Don’t have the latest CLI?curl \-LsSf https://hf\.co/cli/install\.sh \| bash

Models citing this paper0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.19011 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.19011 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.19011 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to acollectionto link it from this page.

Similar Articles

Multiplication in Multimodal LLMs: Computation with Text, Image, and Audio Inputs

Hugging Face Daily Papers

This paper investigates the arithmetic limitations of multimodal LLMs on multi-digit multiplication across text, image, and audio modalities, introducing a controlled benchmark and a novel 'arithmetic load' metric (C) that better predicts model accuracy than traditional step-counting methods. Results show accuracy collapses as C grows, and that performance degradation is primarily computational rather than perceptual.

What We are Missing in Multimodal LLM Evaluation?

arXiv cs.AI

This paper reviews current multimodal LLM evaluation benchmarks and identifies key gaps such as temporal-spatial coherence, physical world understanding, multimodal consistency, and selective attention, arguing that existing isolated-task benchmarks fail to measure true cross-modal integration.