skip to main content
10.1145/3201064.3201076acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebsciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Viewpoint Discovery and Understanding in Social Networks

Authors Info & Claims
Published:15 May 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

The Web has evolved to a dominant platform where everyone has the opportunity to express their opinions, to interact with other users, and to debate on emerging events happening around the world. On the one hand, this has enabled the presence of different viewpoints and opinions about a - usually controversial - topic (like Brexit), but at the same time, it has led to phenomena like media bias, echo chambers and filter bubbles, where users are exposed to only one point of view on the same topic. Therefore, there is the need for methods that are able to detect and explain the different viewpoints. In this paper, we propose a graph partitioning method that exploits social interactions to enable the discovery of different communities (representing different viewpoints) discussing about a controversial topic in a social network like Twitter. To explain the discovered viewpoints, we describe a method, called Iterative Rank Difference (IRD), which allows detecting descriptive terms that characterize the different viewpoints as well as understanding how a specific term is related to a viewpoint (by detecting other related descriptive terms). The results of an experimental evaluation showed that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art methods on viewpoint discovery, while a qualitative analysis of the proposed IRD method on three different controversial topics showed that IRD provides comprehensive and deep representations of the different viewpoints.

References

  1. Luca Maria Aiello, Alain Barrat, Rossano Schifanella, Ciro Cattuto, Benjamin Markines, and Filippo Menczer . 2012. Friendship Prediction and Homophily in Social Media. ACM Trans. Web, Vol. 6, 2, Article bibinfoarticleno9 (2012), bibinfonumpages9:1--9:33 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Khalid Al Khatib, Hinrich Schütze, and Cathleen Kantner . 2012. Automatic Detection of Point of View Differences in Wikipedia. COLING. 33--50.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow . 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives Vol. 31, 2 (2017), 211--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Hélio Almeida, Dorgival Guedes, Wagner Meira, and Mohammed J Zaki . 2011. Is there a best quality metric for graph clusters? Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Springer, 44--59. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Pablo Barberá . 2014. Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis, Vol. 23, 1 (2014), 76--91.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. David M Blei, Andrew Y Ng, and Michael I Jordan . 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning research Vol. 3, Jan (2003), 993--1022. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Vincent D Blondel, Jean-Loup Guillaume, Renaud Lambiotte, and Etienne Lefebvre . 2008. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of statistical mechanics: theory and experiment, Vol. 2008, 10 (2008), P10008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Erik Borra, Esther Weltevrede, Paolo Ciuccarelli, Andreas Kaltenbrunner, David Laniado, Giovanni Magni, Michele Mauri, Richard Rogers, and Tommaso Venturini . 2015. Societal controversies in Wikipedia articles. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 193--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Igor Brigadir, Derek Greene, and Pádraig Cunningham . 2015. Analyzing discourse communities with distributional semantic models Proceedings of the ACM Web Science Conference. ACM, 27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Yoonjung Choi, Yuchul Jung, and Sung-Hyon Myaeng . 2010. Identifying controversial issues and their sub-topics in news articles. Intelligence and Security Informatics (2010), 140--153. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Raviv Cohen and Derek Ruths . 2013. Classifying political orientation on Twitter: It's not easy! ICWSM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Michael Conover, Jacob Ratkiewicz, Matthew R Francisco, Bruno Gonccalves, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini . 2011. Political polarization on twitter. ICWSM Vol. 133 (2011), 89--96.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Leon Danon, Albert Diaz-Guilera, Jordi Duch, and Alex Arenas . 2005. Comparing community structure identification. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, Vol. 2005, 09 (2005), P09008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Shiri Dori-Hacohen and James Allan . 2015. Automated controversy detection on the web. In European Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 423--434.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Erick Elejalde, Leo Ferres, and Eelco Herder . 2017. The Nature of Real and Perceived Bias in Chilean Media Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. 95--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Anjie Fang, Iadh Ounis, Philip Habel, Craig Macdonald, and Nut Limsopatham . 2015. Topic-centric classification of twitter user's political orientation Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, 791--794. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Seth Flaxman, Sharad Goel, and Justin M Rao . 2016. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly Vol. 80, S1 (2016), 298--320.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis, and Michael Mathioudakis . 2016. Quantifying controversy in social media. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 33--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Mathieu Jacomy, Tommaso Venturini, Sebastien Heymann, and Mathieu Bastian . 2014. ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PloS one, Vol. 9, 6 (2014), e98679.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Aditya Joshi, Pushpak Bhattacharyya, and Mark James Carman . 2016. Political Issue Extraction Model: A Novel Hierarchical Topic Model That Uses Tweets By Political And Non-Political Authors. WASSA@ NAACL-HLT. 82--90.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Ravi Kannan, Santosh Vempala, and Adrian Vetta . 2004. On clusterings: Good, bad and spectral. Journal of the ACM (JACM) Vol. 51, 3 (2004), 497--515. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. George Karypis and Vipin Kumar . 1995. METIS--unstructured graph partitioning and sparse matrix ordering system, version 2.0. (1995).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Chunyu Kit and Xiaoyue Liu . 2008. Measuring mono-word termhood by rank difference via corpus comparison. Terminology. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication Vol. 14, 2 (2008), 204--229.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Hosam Mahmoud . 2008. Pólya urn models. CRC press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Yelena Mejova, Amy X Zhang, Nicholas Diakopoulos, and Carlos Castillo . 2014. Controversy and sentiment in online news. Computation and Journalism Symposium (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Saif Mohammad, Svetlana Kiritchenko, Parinaz Sobhani, Xiaodan Zhu, and Colin Cherry . 2016. Semeval-2016 task 6: Detecting stance in tweets. Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016). 31--41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Mark Newman . 2010. Networks: an introduction. Oxford university press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Mark EJ Newman . 2004. Analysis of weighted networks. Physical review E, Vol. 70, 5 (2004), 056131.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 Association for Computational Linguistics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Bo Pang, Lillian Lee, et almbox. . 2008. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, Vol. 2, 1--2 (2008), 1--135. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Symeon Papadopoulos, Yiannis Kompatsiaris, Athena Vakali, and Ploutarchos Spyridonos . 2012. Community detection in social media. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Vol. 24, 3 (2012), 515--554. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Michael Paul and Roxana Girju . 2010. A two-dimensional topic-aspect model for discovering multi-faceted topics. Urbana, Vol. 51, 61801 (2010), 36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Michael J Paul, ChengXiang Zhai, and Roxana Girju . 2010. Summarizing contrastive viewpoints in opinionated text Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 66--76. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Marco Pennacchiotti and Ana-Maria Popescu . 2011. Democrats, republicans and starbucks afficionados: user classification in twitter Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 430--438. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Ana-Maria Popescu and Marco Pennacchiotti . 2010. Detecting controversial events from twitter. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management. ACM, 1873--1876. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Minghui Qiu and Jing Jiang . 2013. A Latent Variable Model for Viewpoint Discovery from Threaded Forum Posts Proceedings of NAACL-HLT. 1031--1040.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Minghui Qiu, Liu Yang, and Jing Jiang . 2013. Modeling interaction features for debate side clustering Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Management. ACM, 873--878. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Adithya Rao and Nemanja Spasojevic . 2016. Actionable and Political Text Classification using Word Embeddings and LSTM. CoRR (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhaochun Ren, Oana Inel, Lora Aroyo, and Maarten de Rijke . 2016. Time-aware multi-viewpoint summarization of multilingual social text streams Proceedings of the 25th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM, 387--396. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. 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 Proceedings of the 7th ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. ACM, 503--512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. 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. Journal of medical Internet research Vol. 18, 8 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Thibaut Thonet, Guillaume Cabanac, Mohand Boughanem, and Karen Pinel-Sauvagnat . 2016. VODUM: a topic model unifying viewpoint, topic and opinion discovery European Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 533--545.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Thibaut Thonet, Guillaume Cabanac, Mohand Boughanem, and Karen Pinel-Sauvagnat . 2017. Users Are Known by the Company They Keep: Topic Models for Viewpoint Discovery in Social Networks. In CIKM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Giang Binh Tran and Eelco Herder . 2015. Detecting Filter Bubbles in Ongoing News Stories.. UMAP 2015 Extended Proceedings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Viewpoint Discovery and Understanding in Social Networks

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      WebSci '18: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science
      May 2018
      399 pages
      ISBN:9781450355636
      DOI:10.1145/3201064

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 15 May 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      WebSci '18 Paper Acceptance Rate30of113submissions,27%Overall Acceptance Rate218of875submissions,25%

      Upcoming Conference

      Websci '24
      16th ACM Web Science Conference
      May 21 - 24, 2024
      Stuttgart , Germany

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader