×

Weighted argumentation for analysis of discussions in Twitter. (English) Zbl 1422.91606

Summary: Twitter has become a widely used social network to discuss ideas about many domains. This leads to a growing interest in understanding what are the major accepted or rejected opinions in different domains by social network users. At the same time, checking what are the topics that produce the most controversial discussions among users can be a good tool to discover topics that can be divisive, what can be useful, e.g., for policy makers. With the aim to automatically discover such information from Twitter discussions, we present an analysis system based on Valued Abstract Argumentation to model and reason about the accepted and rejected opinions. We consider different schemes to weight the opinions of Twitter users, such that we can tune the relevance of opinions considering different information sources from the social network. Towards having a fully automatic system, we also design a relation labeling system for discovering the relation between opinions. Regarding the underlying acceptability semantics, we use ideal semantics to compute accepted/rejected opinions. We define two measures over sets of accepted and rejected opinions to quantify the most controversial discussions. In order to validate our system, we analyze different real Twitter discussions from the political domain. The results show that different weighting schemes produce different sets of socially accepted opinions and that the controversy measures can reveal significant differences between discussions.

MSC:

91D30 Social networks; opinion dynamics
68T05 Learning and adaptive systems in artificial intelligence
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
Full Text: DOI Link

References:

[1] Alsinet, Teresa; Béjar, Ramón; Godo, Lluis; Guitart, Francesc, RP-delp: a weighted defeasible argumentation framework based on a recursive semantics, J. Log. Comput., 26, 4, 1315-1360, (2016) · Zbl 1354.68243
[2] Amgoud, Leila; Cayrol, Claudette, Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks, J. Autom. Reason., 29, 2, 125-169, (2002) · Zbl 1056.68589
[3] Amgoud, Leila; Cayrol, Claudette, A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments, Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 34, 1-3, 197-215, (2002) · Zbl 1002.68172
[4] Atkinson, Katie; Bench-Capon, Trevor J. M.; McBurney, Peter, PARMENIDES: facilitating deliberation in democracies, Artif. Intell. Law, 14, 4, 261-275, (2006)
[5] Bench-Capon, Trevor J. M., Value-based argumentation frameworks, (Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, NMR 2002, (2002)), 443-454
[6] Bench-Capon, Trevor J. M., Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks, J. Log. Comput., 13, 3, 429-448, (2003) · Zbl 1043.03026
[7] Bench-Capon, Trevor J. M.; Dunne, Paul E., Argumentation in artificial intelligence, Artif. Intell., 171, 10-15, 619-641, (2007) · Zbl 1168.68560
[8] Bird, Steven, NLTK: the natural language toolkit, (Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2006, (2006)), 17-21
[9] Burton, Suzan; Soboleva, Alena, Interactive or reactive? marketing with twitter, J. Consum. Mark., 28, 7, 491-499, (2011)
[10] Cabrio, Elena; Villata, Serena, A natural language bipolar argumentation approach to support users in online debate interactions, Argum. Comput., 4, 3, 209-230, (2013)
[11] Cartwright, Dan; Atkinson, Katie, Political engagement through tools for argumentation, (Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2008, (2008)), 116-127
[12] Cartwright, Dan; Atkinson, Katie, Using computational argumentation to support e-participation, IEEE Intell. Syst., 24, 5, 42-52, (2009)
[13] Cayrol, Claudette; Lagasquie-Schiex, Marie-Christine, Graduality in argumentation, J. Artif. Intell. Res., 23, 245-297, (2005) · Zbl 1080.68608
[14] Ceron, Andrea; Curini, Luigi; Iacus, Stefano M.; Porro, Giuseppe, Every tweet counts? how sentiment analysis of social media can improve our knowledge of citizens? political preferences with an application to Italy and France, New Media Soc., 16, 2, 340-358, (2014)
[15] Charwat, Günther; Dvorák, Wolfgang, DYNPARTIX 2.0 - dynamic programming argumentation reasoning tool, (Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2012, (2012)), 507-508
[16] Chu, Shu-Chuan; Kim, Yoojung, Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (ewom) in social networking sites, Int. J. Advert., 30, 1, 47-75, (2011)
[17] Dung, Phan Minh, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artif. Intell., 77, 2, 321-357, (1995) · Zbl 1013.68556
[18] Dung, Phan Minh; Mancarella, Paolo; Toni, Francesca, Computing ideal sceptical argumentation, Artif. Intell., 171, 10-15, 642-674, (2007) · Zbl 1168.68564
[19] Dung, Phan Minh; Mancarella, Paolo; Toni, Francesca, Computing ideal sceptical argumentation, Artif. Intell., 171, 10-15, 642-674, (2007) · Zbl 1168.68564
[20] Dunne, Paul E., Computational properties of argument systems satisfying graph-theoretic constraints, Artif. Intell., 171, 10-15, 701-729, (2007) · Zbl 1168.68565
[21] Dunne, Paul E., The computational complexity of ideal semantics I: abstract argumentation frameworks, (Proceedings of Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2008, (2008)), 147-158
[22] Dunne, Paul E., The computational complexity of ideal semantics, Artif. Intell., 173, 18, 1559-1591, (2009) · Zbl 1185.68666
[23] Dunne, Paul E.; Hunter, Anthony; McBurney, Peter; Parsons, Simon; Wooldridge, Michael, Weighted argument systems: basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results, Artif. Intell., 175, 2, 457-486, (2011) · Zbl 1216.68261
[24] Dvorák, Wolfgang; Dunne, Paul E.; Woltran, Stefan, Parametric properties of ideal semantics, (IJCAI, (2011)), 851-856
[25] Dvorák, Wolfgang; Pichler, Reinhard; Woltran, Stefan, Towards fixed-parameter tractable algorithms for abstract argumentation, Artif. Intell., 186, 1-37, (2012) · Zbl 1251.68226
[26] Egilmez, Sinan; Martins, João; Leite, João, Extending social abstract argumentation with votes on attacks, (Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation - Second International Workshop, TAFA 2013, Beijing, China, (2013)), 16-31 · Zbl 1405.68347
[27] Egly, Uwe; Gaggl, Sarah Alice; Aspartix, Stefan Woltran, Implementing argumentation frameworks using answer-set programming, (Garcia de la Banda, Maria; Pontelli, Enrico, Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP 2008, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5366, (2008), Springer Udine, Italy) · Zbl 1226.68018
[28] Faber, Wolfgang; Woltran, Stefan, Manifold answer-set programs for meta-reasoning, (Proceedings of Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, LPNMR 2009, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5753, (2009), Springer), 115-128 · Zbl 1258.68029
[29] García, Alejandro Javier; Simari, Guillermo Ricardo, Defeasible logic programming: an argumentative approach, Theory Pract. Log. Program., 4, 1-2, 95-138, (2004) · Zbl 1090.68015
[30] Grosse, Kathrin; Iván Chesñevar, Carlos; Maguitman, Ana Gabriela, An argument-based approach to mining opinions from twitter, (Proceedings of the First International Conference on Agreement Technologies, AT 2012, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 918, (2012)), 408-422, CEUR-WS.org
[31] Grosse, Kathrin; Paula González, María; Iván Chesñevar, Carlos; Maguitman, Ana Gabriela, Integrating argumentation and sentiment analysis for mining opinions from twitter, AI Commun., 28, 3, 387-401, (2015) · Zbl 1373.68322
[32] Kai Hansen, Lars; Arvidsson, Adam; Arup Nielsen, Finn; Colleoni, Elanor; Etter, Michael, Good friends, bad news-affect and virality in twitter, (International Workshop on Social Computing, Network, and Services, SocialComNet 2011, (2011))
[33] Inc, Twitter, Twitter about company, (2016), [online; accessed 22-February-2016]
[34] Twitter Inc. Twitter developers, (2016), [online; accessed 22-February-2016]
[35] Jansen, Bernard J.; Zhang, Mimi; Sobel, Kate; Chowdury, Abdur, Twitter power: tweets as electronic word of mouth, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., 60, 11, 2169-2188, (2009)
[36] Kouylekov, Milen; Negri, Matteo, An open-source package for recognizing textual entailment, (Proceedings of the ACL 2010 System Demonstrations, ACLDemos 2010, (2010)), 42-47
[37] Leite, João; Martins, João, Social abstract argumentation, (Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2011, (2011), AAAI Press), 2287-2292
[38] Llewellyn, Clare; Grover, Claire; Oberlander, Jon; Klein, Ewan, Re-using an argument corpus to aid in the curation of social media collections, Eur. Lang. Resour. Assoc. (ELRA), 5, 462-468, (2014)
[39] Matt, Paul-Amaury; Toni, Francesca, A game-theoretic measure of argument strength for abstract argumentation, (Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence, JELIA 2008, (2008)), 285-297 · Zbl 1178.68566
[40] McCarthy, Laura; Stock, Debra, How travelers use online and social media channels to make hotel-choice decisions, Cornell Hosp. Rep., 10, 18, 6-18, (2010)
[41] Modgil, Sanjay, Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks, Artif. Intell., 173, 9-10, 901-934, (2009) · Zbl 1192.68663
[42] Nielsen, Finn Arup, A new anew: evaluation of a word List for sentiment analysis in microblogs, (Proceedings of the ESWC2011 Workshop on ‘Making Sense of Microposts’, (2011)), 93-98
[43] Prakken, Henry; Sartor, Giovanni, Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities, J. Appl. Non-Class. Log., 7, 1, 25-75, (1997) · Zbl 0877.68019
[44] Procter, Rob; Vis, Farida; Voss, Alex, Reading the riots on twitter: methodological innovation for the analysis of big data, Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol., 16, 3, 197-214, (2013)
[45] Real time statistics project. twitter usage statistics, (2016), [online; accessed 22-February-2016]
[46] Rahwan, Iyad; Simari, Guillermo R., Argumentation in artificial intelligence, (2009), Springer Publishing Company
[47] Tumasjan, Andranik; Sprenger, Timm; Sandner, Philipp; Welpe, Isabell, Predicting elections with twitter: what 140 characters reveal about political sentiment, (International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, (2010))
[48] Villatoro, Daniel; Serna, Jetzabel; Rodriguez, Victor; Torrent-Moreno, Marc, The tweetbeat of the city: microblogging used for discovering behavioural patterns during the mwc2012, (Nin, Jordi; Villatoro, Daniel, Citizen in Sensor Networks, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7685, (2013), Springer Berlin Heidelberg), 43-56
[49] Wagemakers, Adrianus, There is a possibility that the quality of Twitter’s users is deteriorating, (2015), [online; accessed 22-February-2016]
[50] Wardeh, Maya; Wyner, Adam; Atkinson, Katie; Bench-Capon, Trevor J. M., Argumentation based tools for policy-making, (International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL ’13, Rome, Italy, June 10-14, 2013, (2013)), 249-250
[51] Williams, Nigel L.; Inversini, Alessandro; Buhalis, Dimitrios; Ferdinand, Nicole, Community crosstalk: an exploratory analysis of destination and festival ewom on twitter, J. Mark. Manag., 31, 9-10, 1113-1140, (2015)
[52] Wyner, Adam Z.; van Engers, Tom M.; Hunter, Anthony, Working on the argument pipeline: through flow issues between natural language argument, instantiated arguments, and argumentation frameworks, Argum. Comput., 7, 1, 69-89, (2016)
[53] Zhang, Mimi; Jansen, Bernard J.; Chowdhury, Abdur, Business engagement on twitter: a path analysis, Electron. Markets, 21, 3, 161-175, (2011)
[54] Zimmer, Michael; Proferes, Nicholas John, A topology of twitter research: disciplines, methods, and ethics, Aslib J. Inf. Manag., 66, 3, 250-261, (2014)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.