Argumentation Stance Polarity and Intensity Prediction and its Application for Argumentation Polarization Modeling and Diverse Social Connection Recommendation

Cyber argumentation platforms implement theoretical argumentation structures that promote higher quality argumentation and allow for informative analysis of the discussions. Dr. Liu’s research group has designed and implemented a unique platform called the Intelligent Cyber Argumentation System (ICAS). ICAS structures its discussions into a weighted cyber argumentation graph, which describes the relationships between the different users, their posts in a discussion, the discussion topic, and the various subtopics in a discussion. This platform is unique as it encodes online discussions into weighted cyber argumentation graphs based on the user’s stances toward one another’s arguments and ideas. The resulting weighted cyber argumentation graphs can then be used by various analytical models to measure aspects of the discussion. In prior work, many aspects of cyber argumentation have been modeled and analyzed using these stance relationships. However, many challenging problems remain in cyber argumentation. In this dissertation, I address three of these problems: 1) modeling and measure argumentation polarization in cyber argumentation discussions, 2) encouraging diverse social networks and preventing echo chambers by injecting ideological diversity into social connection recommendations, and 3) developing a predictive model to predict the stance polarity and intensity relationships between posts in online discussions, allowing discussions from outside of the ICAS platform to be encoded as weighted cyber argumentation graphs and be analyzed by the cyber argumentation models. In this dissertation, I present models to measure polarization in online argumentation discussions, prevent polarizing echo-chambers and diversifying users’ social networks ideologically, and allow online discussions from outside of the ICAS environment to be analyzed using the previous models from this dissertation and the prior work from various researchers on the ICAS system. This work serves to progress the field of cyber argumentation by introducing a new analytical model for measuring argumentation polarization and developing a novel method of encouraging ideological diversity into social connection recommendations. The argumentation polarization model is the first of its kind to look specifically at the polarization among the users contained within a single discussion in cyber argumentation. Likewise, the diversity enhanced social connection recommendation re-ranking method is also the first of its kind to introduce ideological diversity into social connections. The former model will allow stakeholders and moderators to monitor and respond to argumentation polarization detected in online discussions in cyber argumentation. The latter method will help prevent network-level social polarization by encouraging social connections among users who differ in terms of ideological beliefs. This work also serves as an initial step to expanding cyber argumentation research into the broader online deliberation field. The stance polarity and intensity prediction model presented in this dissertation is the first step in allowing discussions from various online platforms to be encoded into weighted cyber argumentation graphs by predicting the stance weights between users’ posts. These resulting predicted weighted cyber augmentation graphs could then be used to apply cyber argumentation models and methods to these online discussions from popular online discussion platforms, such as Twitter and Reddit, opening many new possibilities for cyber argumentation research in the future

Identification of faction groups and leaders in Web-based intelligent argumentation system for collaborative decision support

Argumentation is an important and critical process in a collaborative decision-making environment. Several argumentation frameworks and systems have been proposed for collaborative decision making earlier. However, limited decision support is provided to stakeholders. in an argumentation process, stakeholders tend to form groups, called faction groups based on their opinions and exchange of arguments. Each faction group is usually led by a faction leader in the group. Identification of faction groups and leaders in argumentation becomes an important challenge which has not been addressed adequately in the past. the faction assessment in argumentation provides the decision maker with more information about faction groups and their opinions towards the given issue and it helps the decision maker with logical and analytical competency to assess and analyze post-decision effects on each faction group and faction leaders and make rational decisions. in this paper, we present a framework for identifying faction groups and faction leaders in an argumentation process using the K-means clustering algorithm. It is evaluated using a data set: An argumentation tree developed by a group of 24 stakeholders in an argumentation process using our web-Based intelligent argumentation system for collaborative decision support. the experiment results show that the framework works effectively for faction assessment. © 2012 IEEE

Polarization and opinion analysis in an online argumentation system for collaborative decision support

Argumentation is an important process in a collaborative decision making environment. Argumentation from a large number of stakeholders often produces a large argumentation tree. It is challenging to comprehend such an argumentation tree without intelligent analysis tools. Also, limited decision support is provided for its analysis by the existing argumentation systems. In an argumentation process, stakeholders tend to polarize on their opinions, and form polarization groups. Each group is usually led by a group leader. Polarization groups often overlap and a stakeholder is a member of multiple polarization groups. Identifying polarization groups and quantifying a stakeholder\u27s degree of membership in multiple polarization groups helps the decision maker understand both the social dynamics and the post-decision effects on each group. Frameworks are developed in this dissertation to identify both polarization groups and quantify a stakeholder\u27s degree of membership in multiple polarization groups. These tasks are performed by quantifying opinions of stakeholders using argumentation reduction fuzzy inference system and further clustering opinions based on K-means and Fuzzy c-means algorithms. Assessing the collective opinion of the group on individual arguments is also important. This helps stakeholders understand individual arguments from the collective perspective of the group. A framework is developed to derive the collective assessment score of individual arguments in a tree using the argumentation reduction inference system. Further, these arguments are clustered using argument strength and collective assessment score to identify clusters of arguments with collective support and collective attack. Identifying outlier opinions in an argumentation tree helps in understanding opinions that are further away from the mean group opinion in the opinion space. Outlier opinions may exist from two perspectives in argumentation: individual viewpoint and collective viewpoint of the group. A framework is developed in this dissertation to address this challenge from both perspectives. Evaluation of the methods is also presented and it shows that the proposed methods are effective in identifying polarization groups and outlier opinions. The information produced by these methods help decision makers and stakeholders in making more informed decisions --Abstract, pages iii-iv