# Punny Captions: Witty Wordplay in Image Descriptions

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.08224 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.08224/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 26 Apr 2017.

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Do Androids Laugh at Electric Sheep? Humor "Understanding" Benchmarks from The New Yorker Caption Contest](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.06293/) (2022)
- [The Iron(ic) Melting Pot: Reviewing Human Evaluation in Humour, Irony and Sarcasm Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.05552/) (2023)
- [Impressions: Understanding Visual Semiotics and Aesthetic Impact](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17887/) (2023)
- [Surveying the Landscape of Image Captioning Evaluation: A Comprehensive Taxonomy, Trends and Metrics Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.04909/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Wit is a form of rich interaction that is often grounded in a specific situation (e.g., a comment in response to an event). In this work, we attempt to build computational models that can produce witty descriptions for a given image. Inspired by a cognitive account of humor appreciation, we employ linguistic wordplay, specifically puns, in image descriptions. We develop two approaches which involve retrieving witty descriptions for a given image from a large corpus of sentences, or generating them via an encoder-decoder neural network architecture. We compare our approach against meaningful baseline approaches via human studies and show substantial improvements. We find that when a human is subject to similar constraints as the model regarding word usage and style, people vote the image descriptions generated by our model to be slightly wittier than human-written witty descriptions. Unsurprisingly, humans are almost always wittier than the model when they are free to choose the vocabulary, style, etc.