Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40396401›Full record

ArticleCognitive science2025

Turing Jest: Distributional Semantics and One-Line Jokes.

Sean Trott, Drew E Walker, Samuel M Taylor, Seana Coulson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Large Language Models as Distributional Baselines for Language Tasks.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sean TrottDepartment of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego.
Drew E WalkerDepartment of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego.
Samuel M TaylorDepartment of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego.
Seana CoulsonDepartment of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humor is an essential aspect of human experience, yet surprisingly, little is known about how we recognize and understand humorous utterances. Most theories of humor emphasize the role of incongruity detection and resolution (e.g., frame-shifting), as well as cognitive capacities like Theory of Mind and pragmatic reasoning. In multiple preregistered experiments, we ask whether and to what extent exposure to purely linguistic input can account for the human ability to recognize one-line jokes and identify their entailments. We find that GPT-3, a large language model (LLM) trained on only language data, exhibits above-chance performance in tasks designed to test its ability to detect, appreciate, and comprehend jokes. In exploratory work, we also find above-chance performance in humor detection and comprehension in several open-source LLMs, such as Llama-3 and Mixtral. Although all LLMs tested fall short of human performance, both humans and LLMs show a tendency to misclassify nonjokes with surprising endings as jokes. Results suggest that LLMs are remarkably adept at some tasks involving one-line jokes, but reveal key limitations of distributional approaches to meaning.

Indexed as

ComprehensionLanguageSemanticsWit and Humor as TopicHumansDistributional semanticsExperimental pragmaticsJoke comprehensionLarge language modelsVerbal humor

Identifiers

PMID40396401
PMCPMC12093450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.