Robust Dual-Signal Fusion: Hybrid Neuro-Symbolic Gating with Compressed Chain-of-Thought Refinement for Irony Detection in Social Media Texts

Sarcasm detection, the identification of discrepancies between literal and intended meaning, is a fundamental task in affective computing. However, zero-shot instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) systematically over-predict the positive (sarcastic) class across the entire capability spectrum, while the prosodic cues humans rely on remain underexploited and transfer unevenly across languages. We introduce CHARM (Charge Calibration and Acoustic Rescue for Multimodal Sarcasm Detection), a training-free framework that couples two modules. Bidirectional Charge Calibration (BiCAL) steers the LLM toward opposing sarcastic and literal verdicts along a symmetric axis of charged prompts; the induced directional biases cancel by construction, and a simple aggregation recovers an unbiased pragmatic signal. Acoustic Late-Fusion Rescue (ALFR) then fuses the calibrated votes with prosodic descriptors and LLM-generated auditory-perception probes through a shallow classifier, actively down-weighting saturated text votes in favour of acoustic evidence. Without fine-tuning any backbone, BiCAL attains the highest reported zero-shot text-only Macro-F1 of 0.787 on MUStARD, while ALFR lifts weak backbones by up to +0.382 Macro-F1 on CMMA. A Stouffer meta-analysis confirms statistical significance on MUStARD and CMMA (Z = 13.89 and Z = 34.64, respectively; p < 10^-43). Our analysis further uncovers a cross-cultural prosodic decoupling: low-level acoustics fail to transfer across languages, whereas high-level perceptual abstractions remain robust. Together, these components yield an explainable, cross-lingual multimodal detector.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) improves large language models (LLMs) on difficult reasoning tasks, but it often incurs long natural-language rationales that are poorly aligned with efficient machine reasoning. We propose Communicative Language Symbolism Routing (CLSR), a test-time framework in which multiple LLM agents autonomously invent, evolve, and share compact Language Symbolism Frameworks (LSFs), while a latent-free router adaptively selects and composes these languages per query to optimize the accuracy-token trade-off. Unlike prompt optimization that refines surface instructions, CLSR treats each LSF as a reusable symbolic protocol with compact symbols, usage rules, and a message-passing contract, and improves it through an evolutionary loop driven by correctness and token cost. At inference time, the router may invoke a single low-cost LSF call, ensemble multiple LSFs, or execute a multi-round LSF composition protocol on harder queries. Across challenging benchmarks, CLSR reduces latency-oriented generated token completion by $3\sim 6\times$ compared to standard CoT while maintaining accuracy. We further derive an information-theoretic lower bound on token cost under arbitrary symbolism and show that, under an interpreter-realizability premise, multi-round LSF protocols conditionally subsume program-execution pipelines. Code is publicly available (https://github.com/pzqpzq/LSF_MDia).

As large language models (LLMs) become default tools for online information verification, an implicit assumption follows them: that scale and general capability are sufficient for nuanced classification of misinformation discourse. We test this assumption directly on 900 Reddit comments spanning three PolitiFact-verified misinformation claims (environment, health, immigration), labelled as belief (propagates the claim), fact-check (corrects it), or other. We compare nine models across three paradigms -- BART-MNLI, three Llama variants, three commercial frontier LLMs (Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini Flash Lite 2.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6), and fine-tuned DistilBERT and RoBERTa -- under universal and topic-specific label schemas. The assumption does not hold. Fine-tuned RoBERTa reaches 0.62 macro-$F_1$ against a best zero-shot result of 0.50 (Claude Haiku 4.5), at a fraction of the per-query cost; the supervised advantage is concentrated on the belief class, the implicit, affective category every zero-shot model under-detects. Scaling does not help: Llama-3-8B matches Llama-3-70B, and Claude Sonnet 4.6 underperforms the smaller Haiku under generic labels, collapsing belief detection to 0.17 and refusing outright on a subset of comments flagged as sensitive. This is a safety-alignment artefact, not a capacity limit. Label schema and topic jointly shape zero-shot performance, with the same model varying by more than 0.13 macro-$F_1$ across topics under matched labels. In a verification context, where missing belief is the costlier error, task-specific fine-tuning remains the more reliable choice despite the proliferation of large generative models.