A distributed argumentation algorithm for mining consistent opinions in weighted Twitter discussions
- 7 Downloads
Twitter is one of the most powerful social media platforms, reflecting both support and contrary opinions among people who use it. In a recent work, we developed an argumentative approach for analyzing the major opinions accepted and rejected in Twitter discussions. A Twitter discussion is modeled as a weighted argumentation graph where each node denotes a tweet, each edge denotes a relationship between a pair of tweets of the discussion and each node is attached to a weight that denotes the social relevance of the corresponding tweet in the discussion. In the social network Twitter, a tweet always refers to previous tweets in the discussion, and therefore the underlying argument graph obtained is acyclic. However, when in a discussion we group the tweets by author, the graph that we obtain can contain cycles. Based on the structure of graphs, in this work we introduce a distributed algorithm to compute the set of globally accepted opinions of a Twitter discussion based on valued argumentation. To understand the usefulness of our distributed algorithm, we study cases of argumentation graphs that can be solved efficiently with it. Finally, we present an experimental investigation that shows that when solving acyclic argumentation graphs associated with Twitter discussions our algorithm scales at most with linear time with respect to the size of the discussion. For argumentation graphs with cycles, we study tractable cases and we analyze how frequent are these cases in Twitter. Moreover, for the non-tractable cases we analyze how close is the solution of the distributed algorithm with respect to the one computed with the general sequential algorithm, that we have previously developed, that solves any argumentation graph.
KeywordsTwitter discussions Valued argumentation Probability values Distributed algorithm Tractable cases
This work was partially funded by Spanish Project TIN2015-71799-C2-2-P (MINECO/FEDER), by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement 723596 and Grant Agreement 768824, and by 2017 SGR 1537. This research article has received a grant for its linguistic revision from the Language Institute of the University of Lleida (2018 call).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Author J. Cemeli has a contract with Company Starloop Studios. Authors T. Alsinet, J. Argelich, and R. Béjar declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- Alsinet T, Argelich J, Béjar R, Esteva F, Godo L (2017a) A probabilistic author-centered model for Twitter discussions. In: IJCAI workshop on logical foundations for uncertainty and machine learning, pp 3–8Google Scholar
- Alsinet T, Argelich J, Béjar R, Planes J, Cemeli J, Sanahuja C (2017c) A distributed approach for the analysis of discussions in twitter. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on social influence analysis co-located with 26th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI 2017), Melbourne, Australia, August 19, 2017, pp 45–56Google Scholar
- Baroni P, Giacomin M (2001) A distributed self-stabilizing algorithm for argumentation. In: Proceedings of the 15th international parallel and distributed processing symposium (IPDPS-01), IEEE Computer Society, p 79Google Scholar
- Bench-Capon TJM (2002) Value-based argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of 9th international workshop on non-monotonic reasoning, NMR 2002, pp 443–454Google Scholar
- Bosc T, Cabrio E, Villata S (2016) Tweeties squabbling: positive and negative results in applying argument mining on social media. Comput Models Argum–Proc COMMA 2016:21–32Google Scholar
- Budán MCD, Simari GI, Simari GR (2016) Using argument features to improve the argumentation process. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2016 Computational Models of Argument, Potsdam, Germany, 12-16 September, 2016, pp 151–158Google Scholar
- Caminada M (2007) Comparing two unique extension semantics for formal argumentation: ideal and eager. In: Proceedings of 19th Belgian–Dutch conference on artificial intelligence (BNAIC 2007), pp 81–87Google Scholar
- Dunne PE (2008) The computational complexity of ideal semantics I: abstract argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of computational models of argument, COMMA 2008, Toulouse, France, pp 147–158Google Scholar
- Dunne PE, Bench-Capon T (2001) Complexity and combinatorial properties of argument systems. Tech. rep., University of Liverpool. http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~ped/papers/csd_rep_argument.ps
- Dusmanu M, Cabrio E, Villata S (2017) Argument mining on twitter: arguments, facts and sources. In: Proceedings of the 2017 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, EMNLP 2017, pp 2317–2322Google Scholar
- Egly U, Gaggl SA, Woltran S (2008) Aspartix: implementing argumentation frameworks using answer-set programming. In: Proceedings of the 24th international conference on logic programming, ICLP 2008, pp 734–738Google Scholar
- Fazzinga B, Flesca S, Parisi F (2013) On the complexity of probabilistic abstract argumentation. In: IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd international joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 898–904. IJCAI/AAAIGoogle Scholar
- Grosse K, Chesñevar CI, Maguitman AG (2012) An argument-based approach to mining opinions from Twitter. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on agreement technologies, AT 2012, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol 918, pp 408–422. CEUR-WS.orgGoogle Scholar
- Hunter A (2012) Some foundations for probabilistic abstract argumentation. In: Computational Models of Argument–Proceedings of COMMA 2012, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol 245, pp 117–128. IOS PressGoogle Scholar
- Li H, Oren N, Norman TJ (2011) Probabilistic argumentation frameworks. In: Theory and applications of formal argumentation–first international workshop, TAFA 2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7132, pp 1–16. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Malewicz G, Austern MH, Bik AJC, Dehnert JC, Horn I, Leiser N, Czajkowski G (2010) Pregel: a system for large-scale graph processing. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data, SIGMOD 2010, pp 135–146Google Scholar
- Rahwan I, Simari GR (2009) Argumentation in artificial intelligence, 1st edn. Springer Publishing Company, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Thimm M (2012) A probabilistic semantics for abstract argumentation. In: ECAI 2012–20th European conference on artificial intelligence, frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol 242, pp 750–755. IOS PressGoogle Scholar