Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3485447.3512144acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

GraphNLI: A Graph-based Natural Language Inference Model for Polarity Prediction in Online Debates

Published: 25 April 2022 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Online forums that allow participatory engagement between users have been transformative for public discussion of important issues. However, debates on such forums can sometimes escalate into full blown exchanges of hate or misinformation. An important tool in understanding and tackling such problems is to be able to infer the argumentative relation of whether a reply is supporting or attacking the post it is replying to. This so called polarity prediction task is difficult because replies may be based on external context beyond a post and the reply whose polarity is being predicted. We propose GraphNLI, a novel graph-based deep learning architecture that uses graph walk techniques to capture the wider context of a discussion thread in a principled fashion. Specifically, we propose methods to perform root-seeking graph walks that start from a post and captures its surrounding context to generate additional embeddings for the post. We then use these embeddings to predict the polarity relation between a reply and the post it is replying to. We evaluate the performance of our models on a curated debate dataset from Kialo, an online debating platform. Our model outperforms relevant baselines, including S-BERT, with an overall accuracy of 83%.

    References

    [1]
    Pushkal Agarwal, Oliver Hawkins, Margarita Amaxopoulou, Noel Dempsey, Nishanth Sastry, and Edward Wood. 2021. Hate Speech in Political Discourse: A Case Study of UK MPs on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (Virtual Event, USA) (HT ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3465336.3475113
    [2]
    Pushkal Agarwal, Sagar Joglekar, Panagiotis Papadapoulos, Nishanth Sastry, and Nicolas Kourtellis. 2020. Stop tracking me Bro! Differential Tracking of User Demographics on Hyper-Partisan Websites. In Proceedings of the The Web Conference (WWW 2020)(WWW ’20). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Taipei, Taiwan, 10 pages.
    [3]
    Vibhor Agarwal, Yash Vekaria, Pushkal Agarwal, Sangeeta Mahapatra, Shounak Set, Sakthi Balan Muthiah, Nishanth Sastry, and Nicolas Kourtellis. 2021. Under the Spotlight: Web Tracking in Indian Partisan News Websites. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 15. 26–37.
    [4]
    Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow. 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives 31, 2 (2017), 211–36.
    [5]
    Christopher A. Bail, Lisa P. Argyle, Taylor W. Brown, John P. Bumpus, Haohan Chen, M. B. Fallin Hunzaker, Jaemin Lee, Marcus Mann, Friedolin Merhout, and Alexander Volfovsky. 2018. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 37(2018), 9216–9221.
    [6]
    Pietro Baroni, Martin Caminada, and Massimiliano Giacomin. 2011. An introduction to argumentation semantics. The Knowledge Engineering Review 26, 4 (2011), 365–410.
    [7]
    Shweta Bhatt, Sagar Joglekar, Shehar Bano, and Nishanth Sastry. 2018. Illuminating an Ecosystem of Partisan Websites. In Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018 (Lyon, France) (WWW ’18). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland, 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1145/3184558.3188725
    [8]
    Johan Bos and Katja Markert. 2006. When logical inference helps determining textual entailment (and when it doesn’t). In Proceedings of the Second PASCAL RTE challenge. 26.
    [9]
    Tom Bosc, Elena Cabrio, and Serena Villata. 2016. Tweeties Squabbling: Positive and Negative Results in Applying Argument Mining on Social Media.6th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument 2016 (2016), 21–32.
    [10]
    Gioia Boschi, Anthony P. Young, Sagar Joglekar, Chiara Cammarota, and Nishanth Sastry. 2021. Who Has the Last Word? Understanding How to Sample Online Discussions. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB) 15, 3 (2021), 1–25.
    [11]
    Elena Cabrio and Serena Villata. 2013. A natural language bipolar argumentation approach to support users in online debate interactions. Argument & Computation 4, 3 (2013), 209–230.
    [12]
    Elena Cabrio and Serena Villata. 2018. Five Years of Argument Mining: a Data-driven Analysis. In IJCAI, Vol. 18. 5427–5433.
    [13]
    Claudette Cayrol and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex. 2005. On the Acceptability of Arguments in Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks. In European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty. Springer, 378–389.
    [14]
    Claudette Cayrol and Marie-Christine Lagasquie-Schiex. 2013. Bipolarity in Argumentation Graphs: Towards a Better Understanding. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 54, 7 (2013), 876–899.
    [15]
    Matteo Cinelli, Andraž Pelicon, Igor Mozetič, Walter Quattrociocchi, Petra Kralj Novak, and Fabiana Zollo. 2021. Online Hate: Behavioural Dynamics and Relationship with Misinformation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14005(2021).
    [16]
    Oana Cocarascu, Elena Cabrio, Serena Villata, and Francesca Toni. 2020. A dataset independent set of baselines for relation prediction in argument mining. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04970(2020).
    [17]
    Oana Cocarascu and Francesca Toni. 2017. Identifying attack and support argumentative relations using deep learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 1374–1379.
    [18]
    Ido Dagan, Bill Dolan, Bernardo Magnini, and Dan Roth. 2010. Recognizing textual entailment: Rational, evaluation and approaches–erratum. Natural Language Engineering 16, 1 (2010), 105–105.
    [19]
    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805(2018).
    [20]
    Phan Minh Dung. 1995. On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 2 (1995), 321–357.
    [21]
    Iginio Gagliardone, Danit Gal, Thiago Alves, and Gabriela Martinez. 2015. Countering online hate speech. UNESCO Publishing.
    [22]
    Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis, and Michael Mathioudakis. 2017. Reducing controversy by connecting opposing views. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 81–90.
    [23]
    Ella Guest, Bertie Vidgen, Alexandros Mittos, Nishanth Sastry, Gareth Tyson, and Helen Margetts. 2021. An Expert Annotated Dataset for the Detection of Online Misogyny. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume. 1336–1350.
    [24]
    Andreas Hanselowski, PVS Avinesh, Benjamin Schiller, Felix Caspelherr, Debanjan Chaudhuri, Christian M Meyer, and Iryna Gurevych. 2018. A Retrospective Analysis of the Fake News Challenge Stance-Detection Task. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. 1859–1874.
    [25]
    Twitter Inc.2022. Healthy conversations. https://about.twitter.com/en/our-priorities/healthy-conversations
    [26]
    Sagar Joglekar, Nishanth Sastry, Neil S Coulson, Stephanie JC Taylor, Anita Patel, Robbie Duschinsky, Amrutha Anand, Matt Jameson Evans, Chris J Griffiths, Aziz Sheikh, 2018. How online communities of people with long-term conditions function and evolve: network analysis of the structure and dynamics of the asthma UK and British lung foundation online communities. Journal of Medical Internet Research 20, 7 (2018), e238.
    [27]
    Dmytro Karamshuk, Tetyana Lokot, Oleksandr Pryymak, and Nishanth Sastry. 2016. Identifying Partisan Slant in News Articles and Twitter During Political Crises. In Social Informatics, Emma Spiro and Yong-Yeol Ahn (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 257–272.
    [28]
    Sebastian Köffer, Dennis M Riehle, Steffen Höhenberger, and Jörg Becker. 2018. Discussing the value of automatic hate speech detection in online debates. Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI 2018): Data Driven X-Turning Data in Value, Leuphana, Germany(2018).
    [29]
    Milen Kouylekov and Matteo Negri. 2010. An open-source package for recognizing textual entailment. In Proceedings of the ACL 2010 System Demonstrations. 42–47.
    [30]
    Srijan Kumar, Robert West, and Jure Leskovec. 2016. Disinformation on the web: Impact, characteristics, and detection of wikipedia hoaxes. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on World Wide Web. 591–602.
    [31]
    John Lawrence and Chris Reed. 2020. Argument Mining: A Survey. Computational Linguistics 45, 4 (2020), 765–818.
    [32]
    Marco Lippi and Paolo Torroni. 2016. Argumentation Mining: State of the Art and Emerging Trends. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology (TOIT) 16, 2 (2016), 1–25.
    [33]
    Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692(2019).
    [34]
    Tobias Mayer, Santiago Marro, Elena Cabrio, and Serena Villata. 2021. Enhancing Evidence-Based Medicine with Natural Language Argumentative Analysis of Clinical Trials. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine(2021), 102098.
    [35]
    Pietro Panzarasa, Christopher J Griffiths, Nishanth Sastry, and Anna De Simoni. 2020. Social medical capital: how patients and caregivers can benefit from online social interactions. Journal of Medical Internet Research 22, 7 (2020), e16337.
    [36]
    Iyad Rahwan, Mohammed I Madakkatel, Jean-François Bonnefon, Ruqiyabi N Awan, and Sherief Abdallah. 2010. Behavioral experiments for assessing the abstract argumentation semantics of reinstatement. Cognitive Science 34, 8 (2010), 1483–1502.
    [37]
    Iyad Rahwan and Guillermo R. Simari. 2009. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 47. Springer.
    [38]
    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
    [39]
    Serena Villata. 2021. Towards assessing natural language argument strength: results and open challenges. http://argstrength2021.argumentationcompetition.org/
    [40]
    Anthony P. Young. 2018. Notes on Abstract Argumentation Theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.07709(2018).
    [41]
    Anthony P. Young. 2021. Likes as Argument Strength for Online Debates. In The Third Workshop on Argument Strength. Available from http://argstrength2021.argumentationcompetition.org/papers/ArgStrength2021_paper_8.pdf, last accessed 22/1/2022.
    [42]
    Anthony P. Young, Sagar Joglekar, Gioia Boschi, and Nishanth Sastry. 2021. Ranking comment sorting policies in online debates. Argument & Computation 12, 2 (2021), 265–285.
    [43]
    Anthony P. Young, Sagar Joglekar, Kiran Garimella, and Nishanth Sastry. 2018. Approximations to truth in online comment networks. In The Workshop on Argumentation and Society at the 7th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument. Available from https://nishrs.github.io/publication/young-2018-comma/, last accessed 22/1/2022.
    [44]
    Justine Zhang, Arthur Spirling, and Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil. 2017. Asking too much? The rhetorical role of questions in political discourse. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 1558–1572.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)A Graph-Based Context-Aware Model to Understand Online ConversationsACM Transactions on the Web10.1145/362457918:1(1-27)Online publication date: 3-Nov-2023
    • (2023)AI in the Gray: Exploring Moderation Policies in Dialogic Large Language Models vs. Human Answers in Controversial TopicsProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management10.1145/3583780.3614777(556-565)Online publication date: 21-Oct-2023
    • (2023)Biases and Ethical Considerations for Machine Learning Pipelines in the Computational Social SciencesEthics in Artificial Intelligence: Bias, Fairness and Beyond10.1007/978-981-99-7184-8_6(99-113)Online publication date: 30-Dec-2023
    • Show More Cited By

    Index Terms

    1. GraphNLI: A Graph-based Natural Language Inference Model for Polarity Prediction in Online Debates
              Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Information & Contributors

              Information

              Published In

              cover image ACM Conferences
              WWW '22: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022
              April 2022
              3764 pages
              ISBN:9781450390965
              DOI:10.1145/3485447
              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]

              Sponsors

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              Published: 25 April 2022

              Permissions

              Request permissions for this article.

              Check for updates

              Author Tags

              1. Kialo
              2. Online debates
              3. argument mining
              4. polarity prediction

              Qualifiers

              • Research-article
              • Research
              • Refereed limited

              Conference

              WWW '22
              Sponsor:
              WWW '22: The ACM Web Conference 2022
              April 25 - 29, 2022
              Virtual Event, Lyon, France

              Acceptance Rates

              Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

              Contributors

              Other Metrics

              Bibliometrics & Citations

              Bibliometrics

              Article Metrics

              • Downloads (Last 12 months)162
              • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8
              Reflects downloads up to 27 Jul 2024

              Other Metrics

              Citations

              Cited By

              View all
              • (2023)A Graph-Based Context-Aware Model to Understand Online ConversationsACM Transactions on the Web10.1145/362457918:1(1-27)Online publication date: 3-Nov-2023
              • (2023)AI in the Gray: Exploring Moderation Policies in Dialogic Large Language Models vs. Human Answers in Controversial TopicsProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management10.1145/3583780.3614777(556-565)Online publication date: 21-Oct-2023
              • (2023)Biases and Ethical Considerations for Machine Learning Pipelines in the Computational Social SciencesEthics in Artificial Intelligence: Bias, Fairness and Beyond10.1007/978-981-99-7184-8_6(99-113)Online publication date: 30-Dec-2023
              • (2022)Modelling online debates with argumentation theoryACM SIGWEB Newsletter10.1145/3533274.35332782022:Spring(1-9)Online publication date: 12-May-2022
              • (2022)A Survey of Literature Analysis Methods Based on Representation LearningImage and Graphics Technologies and Applications10.1007/978-981-19-5096-4_19(249-263)Online publication date: 22-Jul-2022

              View Options

              Get Access

              Login options

              View options

              PDF

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader

              HTML Format

              View this article in HTML Format.

              HTML Format

              Media

              Figures

              Other

              Tables

              Share

              Share

              Share this Publication link

              Share on social media