Cited by 11Humor Studies and ApplicationsInnovative Human-Technology InteractionNatural Language Processing Techniques

Appropriate Incongruity Driven Human-AI Collaborative Tool to Assist Novices in Humorous Content Generation

Open access
Kariyawasam, Hasindu, Niwarthana, Amashi, Palmer, Alister, Kay, Judy, Withana, Anusha·2024·Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces

Abstract

Creating humorous content has been shown to improve an individual’s emotional well-being by decreasing stress, overcoming anxiety, and enhancing interpersonal relationships. However, it is common knowledge that a good sense of humor is not common. In this paper, we propose a natural language processing (NLP) driven collaborative tool based on appropriate incongruity theory to assist novices in writing humorous content. We use cartoon-caption writing as the use case since it is a popular method where people engage in creating humorous content. The paper describes the design of our co-authoring tool and findings from a two-part user study where (1) 20 participants used our tool to co-author cartoon captions and (2) 66 participants evaluated those captions. Our findings show that the tool helped participants to identify incongruous visual elements in the cartoon, support ideation, and expand the narrative. This resulted in co-authored captions more frequently rated funnier than those written without the tool. This approach can be appropriated to other humor generation applications including creative writing, creating memes, sketch comedy, and advertising.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3640543.3645161

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. [1]1. Issa Annamoradnejad and Gohar Zoghi. 2022. ColBERT: Using BERT Sen- tence Embedding in Parallel Neural Networks for Computational Humor. arXiv:2004.12765 [cs.CL] · arXiv
  2. [2]2. Arthur Asa Berger. 1987. Humor: an introduction. American Behavioral Scientist 30, 3 (1987), 6-15.
  3. [3]3. Steven Bird, Ewan Klein, and Edward Loper. 2009. Natural language processing with Python: analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. O'Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol, California, USA.
  4. [8]8. Dmitry Davidov, Oren Tsur, and Ari Rappoport. 2010. Semi-Supervised Recogni- tion of Sarcastic Sentences in Twitter and Amazon. In Proceedings of the Four- teenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (Uppsala, Sweden) (CoNLL '10). Association for Computational Linguistics, USA, 107-116.
  5. [17]17. Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, Piotr Bojanowski, Matthijs Douze, Hérve Jégou, and Tomas Mikolov. 2016. FastText.zip: Compressing text classification models. arXiv:1612.03651 [cs.CL] · arXiv
  6. [18]18. Herbert M Lefcourt. 2001. Humor: The psychology of living buoyantly. Springer Science and Business Media, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
  7. [20]20. Junnan Li, Dongxu Li, Caiming Xiong, and Steven Hoi. 2022. BLIP: Bootstrap- ping Language-Image Pre-training for Unified Vision-Language Understanding and Generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, ICML, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, 12888-12900.
  8. [29]29. Elliott Oring. 2010. Engaging humor. University of Illinois Press, Champaign, Illinois, USA.
  9. [31]31. Radim Řehůřek and Petr Sojka. 2010. Software Framework for Topic Modelling with Large Corpora. In Proceedings of the LREC 2010 Workshop on New Challenges for NLP Frameworks. ELRA, Valletta, Malta, 45-50.
  10. [38]38. Julia M Taylor and Lawrence J Mazlack. 2004. Computationally recognizing wordplay in jokes. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vol. 26. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, 1315-1320.
  11. [40]40. Tony Veale. 2004. Incongruity in humor: Root cause or epiphenomenon? HUMOR 17, 4 (2004), 419-428.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kariyawasam, H., Niwarthana, A., Palmer, A., Kay, J., & Withana, A.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Venue
Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-03-18
Pages
650-659
OpenAlex
W4393970590
Cited by
9
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1
FWCI
6.04
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) (publishedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council (DE200100479)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Humor Studies and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
humor generation, human-AI collaboration, novice writers, creative writing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review