CLASH: Counterfactual Auditing of Lexical and Prosodic Reliance in Spoken Sarcasm Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Spoken sarcasm detectors may exploit lexical content, prosody, or their interaction, yet conventional evaluation cannot reveal which cues drive their predictions. We introduce CLASH (Controlled Lexical-Acoustic Separation Harness), a bilingual counterfactual diagnostic framework that evaluates each utterance under original, lexical-preserving, prosody-preserving, and approximately neutralised conditions. We evaluate handcrafted acoustic-feature systems, self-supervised learning (SSL) probes, and large audio language models (LALMs) on CMMA and MUStARD. For target-only Qwen3-Omni, lexical-preserving speech retains a 0.135--0.148 AUROC advantage over prosody-preserving speech after duration balancing, with cluster-bootstrap intervals above zero; alternative lexical resynthesis preserves this advantage. Acoustic interventions shift scores without consistently improving discrimination or changing binary predictions under the evaluated conditions. Context and interaction estimates vary across corpora. These findings distinguish acoustic sensitivity from sarcasm discrimination while exposing duration, identity, and transformation effects.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Sep 2026.
Builds on
15 of 28 references.
References · 15
- 2020wav2vec 2.0: A Framework for Self-Supervised Learning of Speech Representationscited by 3,905
- 2021WavLM: Large-Scale Self-Supervised Pre-Training for Full Stack Speech Processingcited by 1,657
- 2020ECAPA-TDNN: Emphasized Channel Attention, Propagation and Aggregation in TDNN Based Speaker Verificationcited by 628
- 2025Qwen3-Omni Technical Reportcited by 497
- 2019Towards Multimodal Sarcasm Detection (An _Obviously_ Perfect Paper)cited by 174
- 2026Qwen3-TTS Technical Reportcited by 118
- 2020Does my multimodal model learn cross-modal interactions? It's harder to tell than you might think!cited by 62
- 2025Voxtralcited by 43
- 2025Do Audio LLMs Really LISTEN, or Just Transcribe? Measuring Lexical vs. Acoustic Emotion Cues Reliancecited by 24
- 2022Probing Speech Emotion Recognition Transformers for Linguistic Knowledgecited by 13
- 2024A Functional Trade-off between Prosodic and Semantic Cues in Conveying Sarcasmcited by 5
- 2025Spoken in Jest, Detected in Earnest: A Systematic Review of Sarcasm Recognition -- Multimodal Fusion, Challenges, and Future Prospectscited by 4
3 more
- 2025Modeling Sarcastic Speech: Semantic and Prosodic Cues in a Speech Synthesis Frameworkcited by 1
- 2026CHARM: Charge Calibration and Acoustic Rescue for LLM-based Multimodal Sarcasm Detectioncited by 1
- 2026When Models Hear What They Expect: Diagnosing Prosodic Heuristics in Multimodal Sarcasm Detectioncited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.