"I See What You Did There": Can Large Vision-Language Models Understand Multimodal Puns?
Authors: Naen Xu, Jiayi Sheng, Changjiang Li, Chunyi Zhou, Yuyuan Li, Tianyu Du, Jun Wang, Zhihui Fu, Jinbao Li, Shouling Ji
Organizations: Zhejiang University · Beihang University · Palo Alto Networks · Hangzhou Dianzi University · Ningbo Global Innovation Center, Zhejiang University · OPPO Research Institute · Qilu University of Technology
Puns are a common form of rhetorical wordplay that exploits polysemy and phonetic similarity to create humor. In multimodal puns, visual and textual elements synergize to ground the literal sense and evoke the figurative meaning simultaneously. Although Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are widely used in multimodal understanding and generation, their ability to understand puns has not been systematically studied due to a scarcity of rigorous benchmarks. To address this, we first propose a multimodal pun generation pipeline. We then introduce MultiPun, a dataset comprising diverse types of puns alongside adversarial non-pun distractors. Our evaluation reveals that most models struggle to distinguish genuine puns from these distractors. Moreover, we propose both prompt-level and model-level strategies to enhance pun comprehension, with an average improvement of 16.5% in F1 scores. Our findings provide valuable insights for developing future VLMs that master the subtleties of human-like humor via cross-modal reasoning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The recognition of multimodal pun examples from MultiPun . (a) A pun relying on phonetic similarity (“pear” and “pair”). (b) A pun based on word polysemy (double meaning of “fan”). (c) A negative sample illustrating a false positive case, where the model mistakenly interprets a non-pun as pun.
Figure 2: Overview of the MultiPun construction pipeline. Our pipeline generates both pun and non-pun samples.
Figure 3: Examples of adversarial negative samples.
Type
Model
Task
Homophonic Pun
Homographic Pun
TPR ↑
Δ TPR ↓
TNR ↑
Δ TNR ↓
F1 ↑
κ↑
TPR ↑
Δ TPR ↓
TNR ↑
Δ TNR ↓
F1 ↑
κ↑
Closed-Source VLMs
GPT-5.1
Detection
0.933
-0.026
0.379
+0.198
0.588
0.241
0.956
-0.036
0.243
+0.201
0.551
0.146
Localization
0.887
-0.046
0.768
+0.072
0.754
0.601
0.876
-0.108
0.695
+0.141
0.705
0.508
Explanation
0.794
-0.062
0.910
+0.059
0.804
0.708
0.757
-0.143
0.878
+0.060
0.757
0.637
GPT-4o
Detection
0.933
0.000
0.332
+0.144
0.571
0.202
0.956
-0.004
0.211
+0.122
0.541
0.121
Localization
0.923
-0.015
0.582
+0.088
0.669
0.425
0.888
-0.028
0.480
+0.120
0.607
0.299
Table 1: Results of pun recognition in detection, localization, and explanation tasks. Metrics (TPR, TNR, F1, κ ) are evaluated under the biased-to-pun prompt. Δ measures variations when prompt bias shifts from pun to non-pun. Darker colors indicate better performance. The best results (smallest variations or highest scores) are bolded .
Model
Homophonic Pun
Homographic Pun
Localization
Explanation
Localization
Explanation
wp
wa
wp
wa
wp
wa
wp
wa
Closed-Source VLMs
GPT-5.1
98.8
87.8
100.0
89.0
97.7
97.7
97.9
97.9
GPT-4o
96.1
84.9
92.6
75.5
97.3
97.3
97.3
97.3
Gemini-3-Pro
97.4
86.8
97.9
88.8
98.8
98.8
98.8
98.8
Table 2: Pun component verification for pun localization and explanation. We represent the average mention ratio of the pun words wp and alternative words wa .
Figure 4: Pairwise comparison for pun explanations.
Model
Method
Homophonic Pun
Homographic Pun
TPR ↑
TNR ↑
F1 ↑
TPR ↑
TNR ↑
F1 ↑
GPT-5.1
Vanilla
0.794
0.910
0.804
0.757
0.878
0.757
Pun-CoT
0.840
0.915
0.836
0.813
0.894
0.803
GPT-4o
Vanilla
0.840
0.786
0.741
0.873
0.659
0.683
Pun-CoT
0.876
0.835
0.794
0.888
0.727
0.730
Gemini-3 Pro
Vanilla
0.969
0.686
0.746
0.980
0.625
0.718
Table 3: Comparison of pun recognition with and without Pun-CoT across VLMs under the explanation task.
Model
Method
TPR ↑
Δ TPR ↓
TNR ↑
Δ TNR ↓
F1 ↑
Homophonic Pun
Qwen3-VL 8B-Instruct
Vanilla
0.418
-0.268
0.881
+0.111
0.505
Pun-Tuning
0.577
-0.155
0.938
+0.098
0.679
Qwen3-VL 30B-Instruct
Vanilla
0.943
-0.273
0.209
+0.469
0.535
Pun-Tuning
0.732
-0.062
0.948
+0.196
0.798
LLaVA-v1.6 Vicuna-13B
Vanilla
0.031
-0.015
0.972
+0.023
0.057
Pun-Tuning
0.495
-0.103
0.974
+0.098
0.640
Table 4: Comparison of pun recognition with and without Pun-Tuning on VLMs under the explanation task.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Category
Homophonic
Homographic
Total
Positive Samples
194
251
445
Negative Samples:
Explicative Substitution (ES)
194
251
445
Random Substitution (RS)
194
251
445
Total Negatives
388
502
890
Total (Pos + Neg)
582
753
1335
Appendix
Table 5: Dataset statistics for MultiPun .
Category
Lexname
Description
Visual
noun.animal
Animals and distinct biological organisms
noun.artifact
Man-made objects, tools, and instruments
noun.body
Body parts (used restrictively)
noun.food
Edible substances and dishes
noun.object
Natural inanimate objects (e.g., stones)
noun.plant
Vegetation and botanical entities
Appendix
Table 6: Classification of WordNet Lexnames into Visual Anchor Categories (retained) and Abstract Categories (filtered).
Model
API Version
OpenAI Family
GPT-5.1
gpt-5.1
GPT-4o
gpt-4o-2024-08-06
Google Gemini Family
Gemini-3-Pro
gemini-3-pro-preview
Anthropic Family
Appendix
Table 7: Closed-source VLM configurations.
Model
Checkpoint
Type
Meta Llama-4 Family
Llama-4-Scout-17B
meta-llama/Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct
Instruct
Alibaba Qwen3-VL Family
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
Qwen/Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
Instruct
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
Qwen/Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
Instruct
Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking
Qwen/Qwen3-VL-8B-Thinking
Reasoning
Appendix
Table 8: Open-source VLM configurations.
Figure 5: Pairwise comparison for pun explanations before and after Pun-Tuning.
Category
Pun Type
Train
Test
Total
Positive
Homophonic
97
97
194
Homographic
125
126
251
Negative
Homophonic
194
194
388
Homographic
250
252
502
Total
666
669
1335
Appendix
Table 9: Dataset splits for Pun-Tuning experiments.
Pun Keyword Hallucination
Homographic Pun
Random Substitution (RS)
I’m your biggest fan . claude-sonnet-4-5 wp : fan Sp : A mechanical device with rotating blades that circulates air wa : fan Sa : An enthusiastic admirer or supporter Explanation : The word ’fan’ has two meanings: (1) a mechanical device that circulates air, which is visually depicted in the image as an anthropomorphized electric fan, and (2) an enthusiastic supporter or admirer, as indicated by the foam finger and the phrase ’biggest fan’ which is an idiom meaning someone’s greatest supporter.
I’m your biggest lamp in the room. claude-sonnet-4-5 wp : lamp Sp : A lighting fixture consisting of a shade and base wa : fan Sa : An enthusiastic supporter or admirer Explanation : The word ’lamp’ creates a pun by having two meanings: literally referring to the lamp character in the image, and playing on the phrase ’biggest fan’ where ’lamp’ sounds like it’s substituting for ’fan’ in the context of being a supporter at what appears to be a stadium/arena setting.
Phonetic Hallucination
Homophonic Pun
Random Substitution (RS)
You are my sole mate. Gemini-3-Pro wp : sole Sp : The bottom part of a shoe or foot, which is visually depicted as two shoe bottoms hugging. wa : soul Sa : The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being, used in the phrase ’soul mate’ to mean a perfect romantic partner. Explanation : The humor relies on the phonetic similarity between ’sole’ (the bottom of a shoe, depicted in the image) and ’soul’ (as in ’soul mate’, a romantic partner). The image shows two shoe soles hugging, literalizing the pun.
You are my banana mate. Gemini-3-Pro wp : banana Sp : A long curved fruit which grows in clusters and has soft pulpy flesh and yellow skin when ripe. wa : soul Sa : The spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal. Explanation : The pun relies on the phonetic similarity between the word ’banana’ and the word ’soul’. The phrase ’banana mate’ sounds like ’soulmate’, which is a common term for a perfect romantic partner or close friend. The image depicts two bananas hugging affectionately, reinforcing the ’mate’ aspect, while the word ’banana’ directly describes the visual subjects.
Semantic Hallucination
Appendix
Table 10: Qualitative examples of false positive errors on negative samples. We illustrate four distinct hallucination patterns where VLMs fail to reject non-pun distractors: (1) Pun Keyword Hallucination (Lexical Level), where models ignore visible text to restore idiomatic keywords; (2) Phonetic Hallucination (Phonological Level), where models fabricate sound similarities between distinct terms; (3) Semantic Hallucination (Semantic Level), where models force polysemous meanings onto unambiguous synonyms; and (4) Visual Object Hallucination (Visual Level), where models misidentify visual objects to align with textual cues.
Detection Failure
Good knight .
Homophonic Pun wp : knight Sp : originally a person of noble birth trained to arms and chivalry; today in Great Britain a person honored by the sovereign for personal merit wa : night Sa : the time after sunset and before sunrise while it is dark outside Explanation : The visual shows a chess knight piece wearing a nightcap and lying in bed, symbolizing bedtime. The caption, "Good knight," creates a pun by substituting "knight" (the chess piece) for "night" in the common bedtime farewell, "Good night." The humor arises from the homophonic wordplay, as "knight" and "night" are pronounced the same but have different spellings and meanings.
Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct is pun: False
Pun Words Error
Super bowl .
Homophonic Pun wp : bowl Sp : a round vessel that is open at the top; used chiefly for holding food or liquids wa : bowl Sa : a wooden ball (with flattened sides so that it rolls on a curved course) used in the game of lawn bowling Explanation : The visual features a soup bowl (dish) depicted as engaging in the sport of bowling, humorously anthropomorphized to throw a ball at pins. The caption, "Super bowl," creates a pun through homography, as it plays on the identical spelling of "bowl" (a dish) and "bowl" (a sporting action). The humor arises from the unexpected juxtaposition of a kitchen item with sports terminology.
gemini-3-pro wp : super Sp : An adjective describing the bowl of soup depicted in the image, specifically highlighting its identity as ’soup’. wa : soup-er Sa : An adjective meaning excellent or of high grade; also part of the proper noun ’Super Bowl’ referring to the NFL championship game. Explanation : The humor relies on the phonetic similarity between the phrase ’Super bowl’ (referring to the major American football championship event) and the phrase ’soup-er bowl’ (describing a bowl of soup that is excellent at bowling). The image literally depicts a bowl of soup bowling, creating a visual pun on the homophone.
Alternative Word Error
What a waist .
Homophonic Pun wp : waist Sp : the narrowing of the body between the ribs and hips wa : waste Sa : any materials unused and rejected as worthless or unwanted Explanation : The visual shows a garbage bin (representing "waste") wearing a belt around its middle, resembling a human waist. The caption, "What a waist," creates a homophonic pun by playing on the identical pronunciation of "waist" (a body part) and "waste" (garbage). The humor arises from the interplay between the visual of the trash bin and the double meaning of the caption.
Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Thinking wp : waist Sp : The belt wrapped around the trash bin, mimicking a human waistline wa : waist Sa : The narrow part of the human torso between the ribs and hips, typically used in compliments about body shape Explanation : The word ’waist’ in the caption refers to both the belt around the trash bin (visual sense) and the human body part (textual context), creating humor through the unexpected application of a human compliment to an inanimate object.
Cross-modal Integration Error
Appendix
Table 11: Qualitative examples of failures on positive samples (genuine puns). We identify four failure modes: (1) Detection Failure, where the pun is missed entirely; (2) Pun Words Error, where the model focuses on the wrong lexical trigger; (3) Alternative Word Error, where the model fails to retrieve the hidden meaning ( wa ) of the anchor word; and (4) Cross-modal Integration Error, where the model confuses the linguistic mechanism (e.g., treating homophony as polysemy).
Vision-language model evaluation measures multimodal systems’ perception, reasoning, grounding, robustness, and reliability across controlled and real-world tasks.
Puns are a challenging form of figurative language that exploit phonetic similarity and semantic ambiguity to convey multiple meanings. Although large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong language understanding capabilities, they still struggle with pun reasoning due to limited phonetic modeling and uncontrolled end-to-end generation. We propose PunGraph, a retrieval-enhanced knowledge graph framework for pun understanding. PunGraph constructs a phonetic-semantic lexical graph using the Unisyn phonetic dictionary, IPA and G2P representations, and WordNet definitions, and retrieves candidate words or senses to constrain LLM reasoning within a structured candidate space. We further introduce WebPun, a new large-scale dataset containing 5,730 annotated heterographic and homographic puns. Experiments on SemEval-2017 and WebPun show that PunGraph consistently improves the performance of small-scale LLMs and achieves competitive results against strong proprietary models. Further analysis shows that retrieval-guided phonetic and semantic constraints effectively reduce common reasoning errors in pun interpretation, highlighting the benefits of integrating structured knowledge with LLMs. We release our code and dataset at https://github.com/ysu132/PunGraph.
Yuchen Su, Zijian Huang, Yaotian Shi +6
School of Computer Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand · School of Computer and Information Technology, Shanxi University · School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London
Large-scale vision-language models (VLMs) have demonstrated remarkable versatility across a wide range of multimodal tasks. However, understanding humor remains challenging because humorous content often depends on subtle interactions among entities, events, context, and implicit relationships across image and text modalities. These interactions can involve complex chains of reasoning that are difficult to capture through conventional prompting or linear chain-of-thought reasoning. In this work, we propose CaRGo-T (Causal Reasoning Graph-of-Thought), a reasoning framework that represents the causal and contextual relationships underlying multimodal humor as a lightweight graph-based reasoning structure. The graph is serialized into a code-based representation generated by a VLM, which can subsequently be interpreted by the same or a different VLM to produce the final prediction in zero-shot or in-context learning settings. We evaluate CaRGo-T on humor understanding and humor detection across four datasets spanning diverse forms of comedic content, including satire, sarcasm, and memes. Experiments with state-of-the-art commercial and open-source VLMs show that CaRGo-T consistently improves performance over existing reasoning-based baselines, achieving gains of approximately 1-20% on humor understanding and 1-3% on humor detection. Further analysis using mutual information indicates that the reasoning representations produced by CaRGo-T contain more information relevant to the target output than those generated by baseline reasoning approaches. Code is available at https://github.com/abhi1nandy2/CaRGo-T.
Abhilash Nandy, Rahul Seetharaman, Aman Bansal +5
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India · Microsoft Research India · LinkedIn, USA +4
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on multimodal benchmarks, yet it remains unclear whether they genuinely reason about relationships between images and text or rely on superficial correlations, known as shortcut learning. This question is particularly important for multimodal sarcasm detection, where successful prediction depends on recognizing pragmatic incongruity rather than treating sarcasm as simple image-text mismatch. We introduce PragMatch, a controlled benchmark of 3,000 image-text pairs derived from MMSD2.0, including original sarcastic examples and constructed literal and hard-negative pairs. We identify influential shortcut cues through systematic masking and evaluate their impact through targeted injection experiments. Our results show that LVLM predictions are sensitive to lexical, OCR-derived and stylistic cues, with injected surface signals causing substantial changes in model predictions despite unchanged underlying image-text relationships. Our findings reveal limitations in current LVLMs while PragMatch provides a systematic testbed for evaluating multimodal pragmatic reasoning beyond surface-level image-text alignment.
Zhanna Mukhametsharip, Vera Demberg, Varsha Suresh
Saarland University, Germany · Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Germany