Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3132847.3132897acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Users Are Known by the Company They Keep: Topic Models for Viewpoint Discovery in Social Networks

Published: 06 November 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Social media platforms such as weblogs and social networking sites provide Internet users with an unprecedented means to express their opinions and debate on a wide range of issues. Concurrently with their growing importance in public communication, social media platforms may foster echo chambers and filter bubbles: homophily and content personalization lead users to be increasingly exposed to conforming opinions. There is therefore a need for unbiased systems able to identify and provide access to varied viewpoints. To address this task, we propose in this paper a novel unsupervised topic model, the Social Network Viewpoint Discovery Model (SNVDM). Given a specific issue (e.g., U.S. policy) as well as the text and social interactions from the users discussing this issue on a social networking site, SNVDM jointly identifies the issue's topics, the users' viewpoints, and the discourse pertaining to the different topics and viewpoints. In order to overcome the potential sparsity of the social network (i.e., some users interact with only a few other users), we propose an extension to SNVDM based on the Generalized Pólya Urn sampling scheme (SNVDM-GPU) to leverage "acquaintances of acquaintances" relationships. We benchmark the different proposed models against three baselines, namely TAM, SN-LDA, and VODUM, on a viewpoint clustering task using two real-world datasets. We thereby provide evidence that our model SNVDM and its extension SNVDM-GPU significantly outperform state-of-the-art baselines, and we show that utilizing social interactions greatly improves viewpoint clustering performance.

References

[1]
Lada A. Adamic and Natalie Glance. 2005. The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog. In Link@KDD. 36--43.
[2]
Faiyaz Al Zamal, Wendy Liu, and Derek Ruths. 2012. Homophily and Latent Attribute Inference: Inferring Latent Attributes of Twitter Users from Neighbors. In ICWSM. 387--390.
[3]
Enrique Amigo, Julio Gonzalo, Javier Artiles, and Felisa Verdejo. 2009. A Com- ´ parison of Extrinsic Clustering Evaluation Metrics based on Formal Constraints. Inform. Retrieval 12, 4 (2009), 461--486.
[4]
Eytan Bakshy, Solomon Messing, and Lada Adamic. 2015. Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 6239 (2015), 1130--1132.
[5]
Pablo Barbera. 2015. Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal ´ Point Estimation Using Twitter Data. Polit. Anal. 23, 1 (2015), 76--91.
[6]
David M. Blei, Andrew Y. Ng, and Michael I. Jordan. 2003. Latent Dirichlet Allocation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3 (2003), 993--1022.
[7]
Igor Brigadir, Derek Greene, and Padraig Cunningham. 2015. Analyzing Dis- ´ course Communities with Distributional Semantic Models. In WebSci. 27:1--10.
[8]
Zhiyuan Chen and Bing Liu. 2014. Mining Topics in Documents: Standing on the Shoulders of Big Data. In KDD. 1116--1125.
[9]
Raviv Cohen and Derek Ruths. 2013. Classifying Political Orientation on Twitter: It's Not Easy!. In ICWSM. 91--99.
[10]
Michael D. Conover, Jacob Ratkiewicz, Matthew R. Francisco, Bruno Gonc¸alves, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini. 2011. Political Polarization on Twitter. In ICWSM. 89--96.
[11]
Shiri Dori-Hacohen and James Allan. 2015. Automated Controversy Detection on the Web. In ECIR. 423--434.
[12]
Adam G. Dunn, Julie Leask, Xujuan Zhou, Kenneth D. Mandl, and Enrico Coiera. 2015. Associations Between Exposure to and Expression of Negative Opinions About Human Papillomavirus Vaccines on Social Media: An Observational Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 17, 6 (2015), e144.
[13]
Anjie Fang, Iadh Ounis, Philip Habel, Craig Macdonald, and Nut Limsopatham. 2015. Topic-centric Classification of Twitter User's Political Orientation. In SIGIR. 791--794.
[14]
Seth R. Flaxman, Sharad Goel, and Justin M. Rao. 2016. Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption. Public Opin. Quart. 80, S1 (2016), 298--320.
[15]
Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis, and Michael Mathioudakis. 2016. Quantifying Controversy in Social Media. In WSDM. 33--42.
[16]
Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis, and Michael Mathioudakis. 2017. Reducing Controversy by Connecting Opposing Views. In WSDM. 81--90.
[17]
R. Kelly Garrett and Natalie Jomini Stroud. 2014. Partisan Paths to Exposure Diversity: Differences in Pro- and Counterattitudinal News Consumption. J. Comm. 64, 4 (2014), 680--701.
[18]
Eduardo Graells-Garrido, Mounia Lalmas, and Ricardo Baeza-Yates. 2015. Finding Intermediary Topics Between People of Opposing Views: A Case Study. (2015). arXiv:1506.00963.
[19]
Eric A. Hardisty, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Philip Resnik. 2010. Modeling Perspective using Adaptor Grammars. In EMNLP. 284--292.
[20]
Gregor Heinrich. 2008. Parameter Estimation for Text Analysis. Technical Report. Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics. 1--31 pages.
[21]
Liangjie Hong, Amr Ahmed, Siva Gurumurthy, Alexander J. Smola, and Kostas Tsioutsiouliklis. 2012. Discovering Geographical Topics In the Twitter Stream. In WWW. 769--778.
[22]
Mohit Iyyer, Peter Enns, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Philip Resnik. 2014. Political Ideology Detection Using Recursive Neural Networks. In ACL. 1113--1122.
[23]
Aditya Joshi, Pushpak Bhattacharyya, and Mark Carman. 2016. Political Issue Extraction Model: A Novel Hierarchical Topic Model That Uses Tweets By Political And Non-Political Authors. In WASSA@NAACL HLT. 82--90.
[24]
Andreas Jungherr. 2016. Twitter Use in Election Campaigns: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Inform. Tech. Polit. 13, 1 (2016), 72--91.
[25]
Chenliang Li, Haoran Wang, Zhiqian Zhang, Aixin Sun, and Zongyang Ma. 2016. Topic Modeling for Short Texts with Auxiliary Word Embeddings. In SIGIR. 165--174.
[26]
Jun S. Liu. 1994. the Collapsed Gibbs Sampler in Bayesian Computations with Applications to a Gene Regulation Problem. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 89, 427 (1994), 958--966.
[27]
Walid Magdy, Kareem Darwish, Norah Abokhodair, Afshin Rahimi, and Timothy Baldwin. 2016. #ISISisNotIslam or #DeportAllMuslims Predicting Unspoken Views. In WebSci. 95--106.
[28]
Hosam M. Mahmoud. 2008. Polya Urn Models ´. Chapman & Hall/CRC.
[29]
Christopher D. Manning, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Hinrich Schutze. 2008. ¨ Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press.
[30]
David Mimno, Hanna M. Wallach, Edmund Talley, Miriam Leenders, and Andrew McCallum. 2011. Optimizing Semantic Coherence in Topic Models. In EMNLP. 262--272.
[31]
Saif M. Mohammad, Svetlana Kiritchenko, Parinaz Sobhani, Xiaodan Zhu, and Colin Cherry. 2016. SemEval-2016 Task 6: Detecting Stance in Tweets. In SemEval@NAACL HLT. 31--41.
[32]
David Newman, Arthur Asuncion, Padhraic Smyth, and Max Welling. 2009. Distributed Algorithms for Topic Models. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 10 (2009), 1801-- 1828.
[33]
Viet-An Nguyen, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Philip Resnik, and Kristina Miler. 2015. Tea Party in the House: A Hierarchical Ideal Point Topic Model and Its Application to Republican Legislators in the 112th Congress. In ACL/IJCNLP. 1438--1448.
[34]
Eli Pariser. 2011. the Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. the Penguin Press.
[35]
Michael J. Paul and Roxana Girju. 2010. A Two-Dimensional Topic-Aspect Model for Discovering Multi-Faceted Topics. In AAAI. 545--550.
[36]
Michael J. Paul, ChengXiang Zhai, and Roxana Girju. 2010. Summarizing Contrastive Viewpoints in Opinionated Text. In EMNLP. 66--76.
[37]
Marco Pennacchiotti and Ana-Maria Popescu. 2011. Democrats, Republicans and Starbucks Afficionados: User Classiffcation in Twitter. In KDD. 430--438.
[38]
Ana-Maria Popescu and Marco Pennacchiotti. 2010. Detecting Controversial Events from Twitter. In CIKM. 1873--1876.
[39]
Minghui Qiu. 2015. Mining User Viewpoints in Online Discussions. Ph.D. Dissertation. Singapore Management University.
[40]
Minghui Qiu and Jing Jiang. 2013. A Latent Variable Model for Viewpoint Discovery from Threaded Forum Posts. In NAACL HLT. 1031--1040.
[41]
Minghui Qiu, Yanchuan Sim, Noah A. Smith, and Jing Jiang. 2015. Modeling User Arguments, Interactions, and Attributes for Stance Prediction in Online Debate Forums. In SDM. 855--863.
[42]
Minghui Qiu, Liu Yang, and Jing Jiang. 2013. Modeling Interaction Features for Debate Side Clustering. In CIKM. 873--878.
[43]
Adithya Rao and Nemanja Spasojevic. 2016. Actionable and Political Text Classification using Word Embeddings and LSTM. In WISDOM@KDD.
[44]
Zhaochun Ren, Oana Inel, Lora Aroyo, and Maarten de Rijke. 2016. Time-aware Multi-Viewpoint Summarization of Multilingual Social Text Streams. In CIKM. 387--396.
[45]
Mrinmaya Sachan, Avinava Dubey, Shashank Srivastava, Eric P. Xing, and Eduard Hovy. 2014. Spatial Compactness meets Topical Consistency: Jointly modeling Links and Content for Community Detection. In WSDM. 503--512.
[46]
Alexandra Schofield and David Mimno. 2016. Comparing Apples to Apple: The Effects of Stemmers on Topic Models. T. Assoc. Comput. Ling. 4, 1 (2016), 287--300.
[47]
Aaron Smith. 2014. Cell Phones, Social Media and Campaign 2014. Technical Report. Pew Research Center.
[48]
Cass R. Sunstein. 2009. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton University Press.
[49]
Didi Surian, Dat quoc Nguyen, Georgina Kennedy, Mark Johnson, Enrico Coiera, and Adam G. Dunn. 2016. Characterizing Twitter Discussions About HPV Vaccines Using Topic Modeling and Community Detection. J. Med. Internet Res. 18, 8 (2016), e232.
[50]
Thibaut Thonet, Guillaume Cabanac, Mohand Boughanem, and Karen PinelSauvagnat. 2016. VODUM: A Topic Model Unifying Viewpoint, Topic and Opinion Discovery. In ECIR. 533--545.
[51]
Hanna M. Wallach, David Mimno, and Andrew McCallum. 2009. Rethinking LDA: Why Priors Matter. In NIPS. 1973--1981.
[52]
Shuai Wang, Zhiyuan Chen, and Bing Liu. 2016. Mining Aspect-Specific Opinion using a Holistic Lifelong Topic Model. In WWW. 167--176.
[53]
Weiwu Zhang, Thomas J. Johnson, Trent Seltzer, and Shannon L. Bichard. 2010. The Revolution Will be Networked: The Influence of Social Networking Sites on Political Attitudes and Behavior. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 28, 1 (2010), 75--92.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Evaluating large language models for user stance detection on X (Twitter)Machine Learning10.1007/s10994-024-06587-yOnline publication date: 6-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Explainable text-based features in predictive models of crowdfunding campaignsAnnals of Operations Research10.1007/s10479-023-05800-wOnline publication date: 12-Jan-2024
  • (2024)Responsible Opinion Formation on Debated Topics in Web SearchAdvances in Information Retrieval10.1007/978-3-031-56066-8_32(437-465)Online publication date: 24-Mar-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
CIKM '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
November 2017
2604 pages
ISBN:9781450349185
DOI:10.1145/3132847
© 2017 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 06 November 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. social networks
  2. topic modeling
  3. viewpoint discovery

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

CIKM '17
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

CIKM '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 171 of 855 submissions, 20%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 1,861 of 8,427 submissions, 22%

Upcoming Conference

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)17
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 23 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Evaluating large language models for user stance detection on X (Twitter)Machine Learning10.1007/s10994-024-06587-yOnline publication date: 6-Sep-2024
  • (2024)Explainable text-based features in predictive models of crowdfunding campaignsAnnals of Operations Research10.1007/s10479-023-05800-wOnline publication date: 12-Jan-2024
  • (2024)Responsible Opinion Formation on Debated Topics in Web SearchAdvances in Information Retrieval10.1007/978-3-031-56066-8_32(437-465)Online publication date: 24-Mar-2024
  • (2023)FLACORM: fuzzy logic and ant colony optimization for rumor mitigation through stance prediction in online social networksSocial Network Analysis and Mining10.1007/s13278-022-01022-313:1Online publication date: 12-Jan-2023
  • (2023)Shards of Knowledge – Modeling Attributions for Event-Centric Knowledge GraphsConceptual Modeling10.1007/978-3-031-47262-6_14(259-276)Online publication date: 29-Oct-2023
  • (2023)From Tweets to Stance: An Unsupervised Framework for User Stance Detection on TwitterDiscovery Science10.1007/978-3-031-45275-8_7(96-110)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2023
  • (2023)The Foundations of Social Media AnalyticsUnderstanding Audiences, Customers, and Users via Analytics10.1007/978-3-031-41933-1_2(11-18)Online publication date: 6-Sep-2023
  • (2022)Beyond facts – a survey and conceptualisation of claims in online discourse analysisSemantic Web10.3233/SW-21283813:5(793-827)Online publication date: 18-Aug-2022
  • (2022)Measuring 9 Emotions of News Posts from 8 News Organizations across 4 Social Media Platforms for 8 MonthsACM Transactions on Social Computing10.1145/35164914:4(1-31)Online publication date: 23-Mar-2022
  • (2022)It’s the Same Old Story! Enriching Event-Centric Knowledge Graphs by Narrative AspectsProceedings of the 14th ACM Web Science Conference 202210.1145/3501247.3531565(34-43)Online publication date: 26-Jun-2022
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media