Dynamic Gated Cross-Modal Fusion with Sarcastic-aware Contrastive Regularization for Multimodal Sarcasm Detection
When text and image seem to agree but secretly clash, that mismatch is sarcasm — and this AI learns to spot it
AI systems that detect sarcasm in posts combining text and images often struggle when the words and picture look superficially compatible but actually contradict each other in meaning. This paper builds a framework that dynamically decides, case by case, how much to trust text versus image, and adds a contrastive learning trick that treats surface-level agreement in sarcastic posts as a trap rather than evidence of sincerity. Tested on the MMSD and MMSD2.0 benchmarks, the method consistently beat strong existing baselines.
METAL MEDIA explanatory visual
When text and image seem to agree but secretly clash, that mismatch is sarcasm — and this AI learns to spot it
- 01Because some sarcastic posts hinge mainly on text and others on the image, the authors built a dynamic gated fusion module that filters information from both modalities (text and image) in both directions and adjusts how much each contributes for every individual sample
- 02Since sarcastic text-image pairs often look literally aligned while meaning the opposite, the paper introduces Sarcastic-aware Contrastive Regularization (SaCR), which pushes text-image similarity up for non-sarcastic samples but pulls it down for sarcastic ones, discouraging the model from trusting misleading surface agreement
- 03Text and image features are extracted with the pretrained vision-language model CLIP, then passed through a bidirectional cross-attention mechanism that applies gates at the value level to suppress uninformative or misleading cross-modal signals
- 04The whole model is trained end-to-end with a multi-objective loss combining the final classification loss, auxiliary unimodal (text-only and image-only) classification losses, and the SaCR contrastive loss
- 05On both MMSD and MMSD2.0, the method achieved the best F1 scores among compared baselines; ablation experiments showed that removing the cross-modal interaction module or the dynamic fusion gate caused the largest performance drops
What they did
- Because some sarcastic posts hinge mainly on text and others on the image, the authors built a dynamic gated fusion module that filters information from both modalities (text and image) in both directions and adjusts how much each contributes for every individual sample
- Since sarcastic text-image pairs often look literally aligned while meaning the opposite, the paper introduces Sarcastic-aware Contrastive Regularization (SaCR), which pushes text-image similarity up for non-sarcastic samples but pulls it down for sarcastic ones, discouraging the model from trusting misleading surface agreement
- Text and image features are extracted with the pretrained vision-language model CLIP, then passed through a bidirectional cross-attention mechanism that applies gates at the value level to suppress uninformative or misleading cross-modal signals
- The whole model is trained end-to-end with a multi-objective loss combining the final classification loss, auxiliary unimodal (text-only and image-only) classification losses, and the SaCR contrastive loss
- On both MMSD and MMSD2.0, the method achieved the best F1 scores among compared baselines; ablation experiments showed that removing the cross-modal interaction module or the dynamic fusion gate caused the largest performance drops

| Dataset | Split | Total | Sarcastic | Non-sarcastic |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMSD | Train | 19,816 | 8,642 | 11,174 |
| Val | 2,410 | 959 | 1,451 | |
| Test | 2,409 | 959 | 1,450 | |
| MMSD2.0 | Train | 19,816 | 9,576 | 10,240 |
| Val | 2,410 | 1,042 | 1,368 | |
| Test | 2,409 | 1,037 | 1,372 |

| Modality | Method | MMSD | MMSD2.0 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acc.% | P% | R% | F1% | Acc.% | P% | R% | F1% | ||
| Text | TextCNN | 80.03 | 74.29 | 76.39 | 75.32 | 71.61 | 64.62 | 75.22 | 69.52 |
| SMSD | 80.90 | 76.46 | 75.18 | 75.82 | 73.56 | 68.45 | 71.55 | 69.97 | |
| BERT | 83.60 | 78.50 | 82.51 | 80.45 | 76.52 | 74.48 | 73.09 | 73.91 | |
| Image | ResNet | 64.76 | 54.41 | 70.80 | 61.53 | 65.50 | 61.17 | 54.39 | 57.58 |
| ViT | 67.83 | 57.93 | 70.07 | 63.40 | 72.02 | 65.26 | 74.83 | 69.72 | |
| Multimodal | DIP | 89.59 | 87.76 | 86.58 | 87.17 | 80.96 | 78.02 | 77.56 | 77.79 |
| Multi-view CLIP | 88.33 | 82.66 | 88.65 | 85.55 | 85.64 | 80.33 | 88.24 | 84.10 | |
| MoBA | 88.96 | 82.84 | 88.12 | 85.40 | 85.83 | 80.42 | 88.67 | 84.34 | |
| G2SAM | 90.48 | 87.95 | 89.02 | 88.48 | 79.43 | 72.04 | 78.07 | 78.07 | |
| TFCD | 89.57 | 84.83 | 89.43 | 88.13 | 86.54 | 82.46 | 87.95 | 84.31 | |
| DGLF | 89.43 | 85.81 | 89.27 | 87.51 | 86.82 | 81.90 | 89.85 | 85.69 | |
| LLaVA+RAG | 89.97 | 89.26 | 89.58 | 89.42 | 86.43 | 87.00 | 86.30 | 86.34 | |
| ESAM | 90.11 | 86.87 | 89.54 | 88.19 | 85.87 | 83.12 | 86.05 | 84.56 | |
| GPT-5.4 (zeroshot) | 71.05 | 76.51 | 75.50 | 71.01 | 72.85 | 78.79 | 75.78 | 72.55 | |
| Ours | 92.62 | 91.96 | 92.82 | 92.33 | 89.66 | 89.36 | 89.74 | 89.51 |

| Variant | MMSD | MMSD2.0 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acc.% | F1% | Acc.% | F1% | |
| Full | 92.62 | 92.33 | 89.66 | 89.36 |
| w/o CMI | 87.91 | 87.42 | 85.10 | 84.97 |
| w/o BiXAtt (only v→t) | 87.48 | 87.03 | 81.86 | 81.70 |
| w/o BiXAtt (only t→v) | 81.84 | 81.07 | 80.53 | 80.37 |
| w/o VGate | 92.08 | 91.77 | 88.71 | 88.59 |
| w/o DFGate | 90.35 | 89.80 | 88.34 | 88.28 |
| w/o SaCR | 91.28 | 91.00 | 88.54 | 88.49 |
| w/o UniAux | 91.31 | 90.92 | 89.16 | 89.03 |
Why it matters
Any system that tries to read tone or sentiment from social media posts (content moderation, opinion analysis, chatbot responses) can badly misread intent if it misses sarcasm hidden behind superficially matching text and images, so a method that explicitly targets this failure mode has direct practical value. The insight that surface-level text-image agreement can mask contradictory intent is also relevant beyond sarcasm detection, for other multimodal understanding tasks.
Terms in this paper
- Multimodal Sarcasm Detection (MSD) · the task of identifying sarcastic intent by jointly analyzing different types of content, such as text and images
- CLIP · a pretrained vision-language model that maps text and images into a shared comparable space
- gate · a learnable mechanism that controls how much of a signal passes through, using a value between 0 and 1
- contrastive regularization · an auxiliary training technique that pulls similar representations closer and pushes dissimilar ones apart
- Grad-CAM · a visualization technique that highlights which parts of an image a model relied on for its prediction
Original abstract (English)
Multimodal sarcasm detection aims to identify sarcastic intent from multimodal content, where inconsistencies between literal meaning and contextual cues often signal irony. This task has attracted increasing research attention. However, accurate detection remains challenging due to instance-dependent modality contributions and misleading semantic consistency, where surface-level alignment masks underlying contradictory intent. Existing methods often rely on fixed fusion strategies and treat sarcasm as generic cross-modal mismatch, limiting their ability to capture subtle sarcasm cues and instance-specific modality interactions. To address these challenges, we propose a novel MSD framework that integrates Dynamic Gated Cross-Modal Fusion with Sarcastic-aware Contrastive Regularization (SaCR). Specifically, a bidirectional gated interaction module performs cross-modal feature filtering and adaptively calibrates textual and visual contributions at the instance level. A dynamic fusion gate further balances modality importance to generate more robust multimodal representations. Furthermore, SaCR is introduced as a label-aware contrastive regularization objective that encourages semantic consistency for non-sarcastic samples while suppressing misleading consistency in sarcastic cases. The proposed framework is trained end-to-end with a multi-objective learning strategy that jointly optimizes multimodal classification and auxiliary unimodal supervision. Extensive experiments on MMSD and MMSD2.0 demonstrate that the proposed method consistently outperforms strong baselines.
Read on arXivLatest papers
- SWE-bench Science: Can Coding Agents Resolve Engineering Tasks in Science?AI coding agents were tested on fixing real scientific software, and even the best one failed more than half the time
- FlashPrefill V2: Block-Sparse Prefill Attention for Long-Context LLM ServingMaking sparse attention fast enough and accurate enough for real LLM serving, not just papers
- PolicyGuide: From Guarding One Action to Guiding the Whole Workflow for Policy-Compliant LLM AgentsMaking customer-service AI agents follow the whole procedure, not just avoid one bad action
- EXIMO: VLM Guided Exploration of VLA PoliciesTeaching a robot new chores without human teleoperation, by letting a chatty AI supervise it
- EnvHarness: Awakening Static Worlds for Agent LearningInstead of building new training worlds from scratch, this work adds a plug-in layer that reshapes existing ones around each agent's actual weaknesses
- Bounded Sovereignty and the Control Tax: Pricing AI Oversight When the Deployer Does Not Own the ModelCompanies that rent AI instead of owning it can only do half of AI safety oversight
- Beyond Imitation: Filtering On-Policy Distillation by Reasoning ProgressA fix for AI models that get penalized by their teacher even when they're reasoning correctly
- PersonalBench: Measuring the Authorship Gap in LLM PersonalizationAI can be prompted to write 'like someone,' but its own voice never fully disappears
Latest from METAL MEDIA
Figures: Hao Guo et al., arXiv:2608.19942, arxiv-nonexclusive