The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
SemEval-2018 Task 3: Irony Detection in English Tweets
Open accessAbstract
This paper presents the first shared task on irony detection: given a tweet, automatic natural language processing systems should determine whether the tweet is ironic (Task A) and which type of irony (if any) is expressed (Task B).The ironic tweets were collected using irony-related hashtags (i.e.#irony, #sarcasm, #not) and were subsequently manually annotated to minimise the amount of noise in the corpus.Prior to distributing the data, hashtags that were used to collect the tweets were removed from the corpus.For both tasks, a training corpus of 3,834 tweets was provided, as well as a test set containing 784 tweets.Our shared tasks received submissions from 43 teams for the binary classification Task A and from 31 teams for the multiclass Task B. The highest classification scores obtained for both subtasks are respectively F 1 = 0.71 and F 1 = 0.51 and demonstrate that fine-grained irony classification is much more challenging than binary irony detection.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Müller, A., Nothman, J., Louppe, G., et al. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1201.0490 · Cited by 71,016
Glove: Global Vectors for Word Representation
Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1162 · Cited by 34,071
SMOTE synthetic minority over-sampling technique
Chawla, N. V., Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O., & Kegelmeyer, W. P. (2002) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.953 · Cited by 32,865
Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0031619 · Cited by 8,733
Mining and summarizing customer reviews
Hu, M., & Liu, B. (2004) · Proceedings of the tenth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/1014052.1014073 · Cited by 7,793
VADER: a parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text
Hutto, C., & Gilbert, E. (2014) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550 · Cited by 6,087
Bag of Tricks for Efficient Text Classification
Joulin, A., Grave, E., Bojanowski, P., & Mikolov, T. (2017) · Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 2, Short Papers · doi:10.18653/v1/e17-2068 · Cited by 4,545
Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Zhang, L., & Liu, B. (2017) · Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-7687-1_907 · Cited by 3,260
(1992) · doi:10.5555/176313.176316 · Cited by 2,892
Cited by
TimeLMs: Diachronic Language Models from Twitter
Loureiro, D., Barbieri, F., Neves, L., Espinosa Anke, L., & Camacho-collados, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-demo.25 · Cited by 263
Li, Z., Zhu, H., Lu, Z., & Yin, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.647 · Cited by 139
TweetNLP: Cutting-Edge Natural Language Processing for Social Media
Camacho-collados, J., Rezaee, K., Riahi, T., Ushio, A., Loureiro, D., Antypas, D., Boisson, J., Espinosa Anke, L., Liu, F., & Martínez Cámara, E. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-demos.5 · Cited by 142
Choi, M., Pei, J., Kumar, S., Shu, C., & Jurgens, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.14938 · Cited by 73
Choi, M., Pei, J., Kumar, S., Shu, C., & Jurgens, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.699 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Van Hee, C., Lefever, E., & Hoste, V.
- Venue
- Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation
- Published
- 2018
- Pages
- 39-50
- OpenAlex
- W2807333695
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 45
- FWCI
- 14.88
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: SemEval-2018 Task 3: Irony Detection in English Tweets. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.18653/v1/s18-1005
- The paper
- Van Hee, C., Lefever, E., & Hoste, V. (2018). SemEval-2018 Task 3: Irony Detection in English Tweets. Proceedings of The 12th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/s18-1005
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
