Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
110 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
56 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
44 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
6 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Two-Stage Stance Labeling: User-Hashtag Heuristics with Graph Neural Networks (2404.10228v2)

Published 16 Apr 2024 in cs.LG, cs.CL, and cs.SI

Abstract: The high volume and rapid evolution of content on social media present major challenges for studying the stance of social media users. In this work, we develop a two stage stance labeling method that utilizes the user-hashtag bipartite graph and the user-user interaction graph. In the first stage, a simple and efficient heuristic for stance labeling uses the user-hashtag bipartite graph to iteratively update the stance association of user and hashtag nodes via a label propagation mechanism. This set of soft labels is then integrated with the user-user interaction graph to train a graph neural network (GNN) model using semi-supervised learning. We evaluate this method on two large-scale datasets containing tweets related to climate change from June 2021 to June 2022 and gun control from January 2022 to January 2023. Our experiments demonstrate that enriching text-based embeddings of users with network information from the user interaction graph using our semi-supervised GNN method outperforms both classifiers trained on user textual embeddings and zero-shot classification using LLMs such as GPT4. We discuss the need for integrating nuanced understanding from social science with the scalability of computational methods to better understand how polarization on social media occurs for divisive issues such as climate change and gun control.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (16)
  1. A. Tyagi, J. Uyheng, and K. M. Carley, “Affective polarization in online climate change discourse on twitter,” in 2020 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), 2020, pp. 443–447.
  2. A. R. KhudaBukhsh, R. Sarkar, M. S. Kamlet, and T. Mitchell, “We don’t speak the same language: Interpreting polarization through machine translation,” Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 35, no. 17, pp. 14 893–14 901, May 2021.
  3. M. Yarchi, C. Baden, and N. Kligler-Vilenchik, “Political polarization on the digital sphere: A cross-platform, over-time analysis of interactional, positional, and affective polarization on social media,” Political Communication, vol. 38, no. 1-2, pp. 98–139, 2021.
  4. K. Garimella, G. D. F. Morales, A. Gionis, and M. Mathioudakis, “Quantifying controversy in social media,” CoRR, vol. abs/1507.05224, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05224
  5. J. Jiang, X. Ren, and E. Ferrara, “Social media polarization and echo chambers in the context of covid-19: Case study,” JMIRx med, vol. 2, no. 3, p. e29570, 2021.
  6. P. Peretti-Watel, V. Seror, S. Cortaredona, O. Launay, J. Raude, P. Verger, L. Fressard, F. Beck, S. Legleye, O. L’Haridon, D. Léger, and J. K. Ward, “A future vaccination campaign against covid-19 at risk of vaccine hesitancy and politicisation,” The Lancet Infectious Diseases, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 769–770, 2020.
  7. R. Karlsen, K. Steen-Johnsen, D. Wollebæk, and B. Enjolras, “Echo chamber and trench warfare dynamics in online debates,” European Journal of Communication, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 257–273, 2017, pMID: 28690351.
  8. Y. Yang and J. Eisenstein, “Overcoming language variation in sentiment analysis with social attention,” Trans. Assoc. for Comput. Linguist., vol. 5, pp. 295–307, 2017.
  9. B. Kovacs and A. M. Kleinbaum, “Language-style similarity and social networks,” Psychological Science, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 202–213, 2020.
  10. M. McPherson, L. Smith-Lovin, and J. M. Cook, “Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks,” Annual review of sociology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 415–444, 2001.
  11. G. Kossinets and D. J. Watts, “Origins of homophily in an evolving social network,” American journal of sociology, vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 405–450, 2009.
  12. T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks,” in ICLR, 2017.
  13. W. Hamilton, Z. Ying, and J. Leskovec, “Inductive representation learning on large graphs,” in NeurIPS, 2017, pp. 1024–1034.
  14. K. Xu, W. Hu, J. Leskovec, and S. Jegelka, “How powerful are graph neural networks?” in ICLR, 2019.
  15. “Code search using retrieval augmented generation,” https://dzone.com/articles/code-search-using-retrieval-augmented-generation, accessed: 2024-03-11.
  16. “Cross-pollination for creativity leveraging llms,” https://dzone.com/articles/cross-pollination-for-creativity-leveraging-llms, accessed: 2024-03-11.
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (4)
  1. Joshua Melton (5 papers)
  2. Shannon Reid (6 papers)
  3. Gabriel Terejanu (22 papers)
  4. Siddharth Krishnan (12 papers)
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets