Advertisement

How Did the Discussion Go: Discourse Act Classification in Social Media Conversations

  • Subhabrata Dutta
  • Tanmoy Chakraborty
  • Dipankar Das
Chapter
Part of the Unsupervised and Semi-Supervised Learning book series (UNSESUL)

Abstract

Over the last two decades, social media has emerged as almost an alternate world where people communicate with each other and express opinions about almost anything. This makes platforms like Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, Myspace, etc., a rich bank of heterogeneous data, primarily expressed via text but reflecting all textual and non-textual data that human interaction can produce. We propose a novel attention-based hierarchical LSTM model to classify discourse act sequences in social media conversations, aimed at mining data from online discussion using textual meanings beyond sentence level. The very uniqueness of the task is the complete categorization of possible pragmatic roles in informal textual discussions, contrary to extraction of question–answers, stance detection, or sarcasm identification which are very much role specific tasks. Early attempt was made on a Reddit discussion dataset. We train our model on the same data, and present test results on two different datasets, one from Reddit and one from Facebook. Our proposed model outperformed the previous one in terms of domain independence; without using platform-dependent structural features, our hierarchical LSTM with word relevance attention mechanism achieved F1-scores of 71% and 66%, respectively, to predict discourse roles of comments in Reddit and Facebook discussions. Efficiency of recurrent and convolutional architectures in order to learn discursive representation on the same task has been presented and analyzed, with different word and comment embedding schemes. Our attention mechanism enables us to inquire into relevance ordering of text segments according to their roles in discourse. We present a human annotator experiment to unveil important observations about modeling and data annotation. Equipped with our text-based discourse identification model, we inquire into how heterogeneous non-textual features like location, time, leaning of information, etc. play their roles in characterizing online discussions on Facebook.

References

  1. 1.
    Arguello, J., Shaffer, K.: Predicting speech acts in MOOC forum posts. In: ICWSM, pp. 2–11 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhatia, S., Biyani, P., Mitra, P.: Identifying the role of individual user messages in an online discussion and its use in thread retrieval. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 67(2), 276–288 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bollen, J., Mao, H., Zeng, X.: Twitter mood predicts the stock market. J. Comput. Sci. 2(1), 1–8 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bunt, H.: A methodology for designing semantic annotation languages exploring semantic-syntactic isomorphisms. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Global Interoperability for Language Resources (ICGL 2010), Hong Kong, pp. 29–46 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chakraborty, T., Dalmia, A., Mukherjee, A., Ganguly, N.: Metrics for community analysis: a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 50(4), 54 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark, A., Popescu-Belis, A.: Multi-level dialogue act tags. In: SIGDIAL, Cambridge, pp. 163–170 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen, W.W., Carvalho, V.R., Mitchell, T.M.: Learning to classify email into “speech acts”. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1–8 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ding, S., Cong, G., Lin, C.Y., Zhu, X.: Using conditional random fields to extract contexts and answers of questions from online forums. In: Proceedings of ACL-08: HLT, pp. 710–718 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Du, J., Xu, R., He, Y., Gui, L.: Stance classification with target-specific neural attention networks. In: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 3988–3994 (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dutta, S., Das, D.: Dialogue modelling in multi-party social media conversation. In: International Conference on Text, Speech, and Dialogue, pp. 219–227. Springer, Berlin (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eisenlauer, V.: Facebook as a third author—(semi-)automated participation framework in social network sites. J. Pragmat. 72, 73–85 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hasan, K.S., Ng, V.: Why are you taking this stance? Identifying and classifying reasons in ideological debates. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 751–762 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hochreiter, S., Schmidhuber, J.: Long short-term memory. Neural Comput. 9(8), 1735–1780 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hochreiter, S., Bengio, Y., Frasconi, P., Schmidhuber, J., et al.: Gradient Flow in Recurrent Nets: The Difficulty of Learning Long-Term Dependencies. IEEE Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kalchbrenner, N., Blunsom, P.: Recurrent convolutional neural networks for discourse compositionality. Preprint, arXiv:1306.3584 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lai, M., Farías, D.I.H., Patti, V., Rosso, P.: Friends and enemies of Clinton and Trump: using context for detecting stance in political tweets. In: Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 155–168. Springer, New York (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Larson, M.L.: Meaning-Based Translation: A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence. University press of America, Lanham (1984)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Le, Q., Mikolov, T.: Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1188–1196 (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lotan, G.: Mapping information flows on twitter. In: Proceedings of the ICWSM Workshop on the Future of the Social Web (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Malhotra, P., Vig, L., Shroff, G., Agarwal, P.: Long short term memory networks for anomaly detection in time series. In: European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, Computational Intelligence and Machine Learning, pp. 89–94. Presses universitaires de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G.S., Dean, J.: Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 3111–3119 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Misra, A., Walker, M.: Topic independent identification of agreement and disagreement in social media dialogue. Preprint, arXiv:1709.00661 (2017)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Connor, B., Balasubramanyan, R., Routledge, B.R., Smith, N.A., et al.: From tweets to polls: linking text sentiment to public opinion time series. International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, vol. 11, no. 122–129, pp. 1–2 (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scott, K.: The pragmatics of hashtags: inference and conversational style on twitter. J. Pragmat. 81, 8–20 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Somasundaran, S., Namata, G., Wiebe, J., Getoor, L.: Supervised and unsupervised methods in employing discourse relations for improving opinion polarity classification. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, vol. 1, pp. 170–179. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Suh, B., Hong, L., Pirolli, P., Chi, E.H.: Want to be retweeted? Large scale analytics on factors impacting retweet in twitter network. In: 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing (socialcom), pp. 177–184. IEEE, Piscataway (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sundermeyer, M., Schlüter, R., Ney, H.: LSTM neural networks for language modeling. In: Thirteenth Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sutskever, I., Vinyals, O., Le, Q.V.: Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 3104–3112 (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tan, C., Lee, L., Tang, J., Jiang, L., Zhou, M., Li, P.: User-level sentiment analysis incorporating social networks. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 1397–1405. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Trevithick, P., Clippinger, J.H.: Method and system for characterizing relationships in social networks (2008). US Patent 7,366,759Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang, H., Can, D., Kazemzadeh, A., Bar, F., Narayanan, S.: A system for real-time twitter sentiment analysis of 2012 US presidential election cycle. In: Proceedings of the ACL 2012 System Demonstrations, pp. 115–120. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang, K.C., Lai, C.M., Wang, T., Wu, S.F.: Bandwagon effect in Facebook discussion groups. In: Proceedings of the ASE BigData & Social Informatics 2015, p. 17. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wang, Y., Huang, M., Zhao, L., et al.: Attention-based LSTM for aspect-level sentiment classification. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 606–615 (2016)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wong, F., Tan, C.W., Sen, S., Chiang, M.: Media, pundits and the US presidential election: quantifying political leanings from tweets. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, pp. 640–649 (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang, A.X., Culbertson, B., Paritosh, P.: Characterizing online discussion using coarse discourse sequences. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Web and Social Media, pp. 1–10. AAAI Press, Palo Alto (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Subhabrata Dutta
    • 1
  • Tanmoy Chakraborty
    • 2
  • Dipankar Das
    • 1
  1. 1.Jadavpur UniversityKolkataIndia
  2. 2.IIIT DelhiDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations