ProCrit: Self-Elicited Multi-Perspective Reasoning with Critic-Guided Revision for Multimodal Sarcasm Detection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.20867v1
• Date: Wed, 20 May 2026 08:02:15 GMT
• Title: ProCrit: Self-Elicited Multi-Perspective Reasoning with Critic-Guided Revision for Multimodal Sarcasm Detection
• Abstract summary: Multimodal sarcasm detection requires reasoning over cross-modal incongruities between literal expression and intended meaning.<n>We argue that multimodal sarcasm detection instead calls for self-elicited multi-perspective reasoning.<n>We propose ProCrit, a Proposal-Critic two-agent framework with a proposal agent for multi-perspective reasoning and a critic agent for external evaluation and targeted revision guidance.
• Score: 9.021525884802841
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Multimodal sarcasm detection requires reasoning over cross-modal incongruities between literal expression and intended meaning, yet the specific analytical perspectives needed vary across samples due to the diversity of sarcastic mechanisms. While recent methods make this analytical process explicit, they still rely on fixed, predefined perspectives that operate independently under hand-crafted routing rules. We argue that multimodal sarcasm detection instead calls for self-elicited multi-perspective reasoning, where a model autonomously generates the perspectives needed for each sample and progressively integrates them into a coherent analysis. To realize this goal, we propose ProCrit, a Proposal-Critic two-agent framework with a proposal agent for multi-perspective reasoning and a critic agent for external evaluation and targeted revision guidance. First, to overcome the lack of process-level supervision in existing sarcasm datasets, ProCrit synthesizes process-level reasoning annotations through a dynamic-role agentic rollout: a strong vision-language model sequentially spawns analytical roles within a shared context, and the resulting multi-role trajectories are flattened into sequences that preserve cross-perspective dependencies while enabling efficient autoregressive generation. Second, to improve reasoning reliability, ProCrit adopts a draft-critique-revise paradigm in which an independent critic identifies reasoning deficiencies and provides targeted natural-language feedback for directed revision. Finally, we develop a mutual-refinement training framework that jointly optimizes proposal drafting and feedback-guided revision via dual-stage reinforcement learning, while refining the critic agent according to the actual effectiveness of its feedback. Experiments on three widely used benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of ProCrit.

Related papers

• StanceFlip: A Comprehensive Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Multimodal Conversational Stance Flipping Forecasting [26.620661739354293]
  StanceFlip is a benchmark designed for multimodal conversational stance flipping forecasting over multi-turn dialogues.<n>Our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance on both sextuple extraction and flip-trigger attribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T09:11:56Z)
• Unlocking the Black Box of Latent Reasoning: An Interpretability-Guided Approach to Intervention [33.40772052822545]
  This paper bridges the gap between mechanistic interpretability and actionable control.<n>We first present a systematic analysis using structural, causal, and geometric probes.<n>We then operationalize these interpretability insights into a suite of training-free, decode-time interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-31T13:52:24Z)
• Enhancing Multimodal In-Context Learning via Inductive-Deductive Reasoning [65.15766304205657]
  In-context learning (ICL) allows large models to adapt to tasks using a few examples, yet its extension to vision-language models (VLMs) remains fragile.<n>Our analysis reveals that the fundamental limitation lies in an inductive gap, models often produce correct answers from flawed reasoning.<n>We introduce a framework that restructures multimodal ICL as a principled inductive-deductive process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T09:18:19Z)
• Learning Structured Reasoning via Tractable Trajectory Control [99.75278337895024]
  Ctrl-R is a framework for learning structured reasoning via tractable trajectory control.<n>We show that Ctrl-R enables effective exploration and internalization of previously unattainable reasoning patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T09:18:19Z)
• Beyond Consensus: Perspectivist Modeling and Evaluation of Annotator Disagreement in NLP [25.097081181685613]
  Annotator disagreement is widespread in NLP, particularly for subjective and ambiguous tasks such as toxicity detection and stance analysis.<n>We first present a domain-agnostic taxonomy of the sources of disagreement spanning data, task, and annotator factors.<n>We then synthesize modeling approaches using a common framework defined by prediction targets and pooling structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-14T01:26:29Z)
• Adversarial Yet Cooperative: Multi-Perspective Reasoning in Retrieved-Augmented Language Models [72.4149653187766]
  We propose a Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adrialversa Reasoning RAG (ARR)<n>The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage.<n> Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T06:57:03Z)
• Analyzing Reasoning Consistency in Large Multimodal Models under Cross-Modal Conflicts [74.47786985522762]
  We identify a critical failure mode termed textual inertia, where models tend to blindly adhere to the erroneous text while neglecting conflicting visual evidence.<n>We propose the LogicGraph Perturbation Protocol that structurally injects perturbations into the reasoning chains of diverse LMMs.<n>Results reveal that models successfully self-correct in less than 10% of cases and predominantly succumb to blind textual error propagation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T16:39:34Z)
• Generative Reasoning Recommendation via LLMs [48.45009951684554]
  Large language models (LLMs) face fundamental challenges in functioning as generative reasoning recommendation models (GRRMs)<n>This work explores how to build GRRMs by adapting pre-trained LLMs, which achieves a unified understanding-reasoning-prediction manner for recommendation tasks.<n>We propose GREAM, an end-to-end framework that integrates three components: Collaborative-Semantic Alignment, Reasoning Curriculum Activation, and Sparse-Regularized Group Policy Optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T17:59:31Z)
• CMR-SPB: Cross-Modal Multi-Hop Reasoning over Text, Image, and Speech with Path Balance [10.843417240658992]
  Cross-modal multi-hop reasoning (CMR) is a valuable yet underexplored capability of multimodal large language models (MLLMs)<n>We argue that existing benchmarks for evaluating this ability have critical shortcomings.<n>We introduce a novel benchmark -- Cross-Modal Multi-Hop Reasoning over Text, Image and Speech with Path Balance (CMR-SPB)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T08:17:31Z)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• Debate, Deliberate, Decide (D3): A Cost-Aware Adversarial Framework for Reliable and Interpretable LLM Evaluation [0.0]
  We present Debate, Deliberate, Decide (D3), a cost-aware, adversarial multi-agent framework that orchestrates structured debate among role-specialized agents.<n>We develop a probabilistic model of score gaps that characterizes reliability and convergence under iterative debate.<n>We show state-of-the-art agreement with human judgments, reduced positional and verbosity biases via anonymization, and a favorable cost-accuracy frontier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T00:22:07Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.