Stance detection on social media: State of the art and trends

Stance detection on social media is an emerging opinion mining paradigm for various social and political applications in which sentiment analysis may be sub-optimal. There has been a growing research interest for developing effective methods for stance detection methods varying among multiple communities including natural language processing, web science, and social computing. This paper surveys the work on stance detection within those communities and situates its usage within current opinion mining techniques in social media. It presents an exhaustive review of stance detection techniques on social media, including the task definition, different types of targets in stance detection, features set used, and various machine learning approaches applied. The survey reports state-of-the-art results on the existing benchmark datasets on stance detection, and discusses the most effective approaches. In addition, this study explores the emerging trends and different applications of stance detection on social media. The study concludes by discussing the gaps in the current existing research and highlights the possible future directions for stance detection on social media.Comment: We request withdrawal of this article sincerely. We will re-edit this paper. Please withdraw this article before we finish the new versio

Extracting and Attributing Quotes in Text and Assessing them as Opinions

News articles often report on the opinions that salient people have about important issues. While it is possible to infer an opinion from a person's actions, it is much more common to demonstrate that a person holds an opinion by reporting on what they have said. These instances of speech are called reported speech, and in this thesis we set out to detect instances of reported speech, attribute them to their speaker, and to identify which instances provide evidence of an opinion. We first focus on extracting reported speech, which involves finding all acts of communication that are reported in an article. Previous work has approached this task with rule-based methods, however there are several factors that confound these approaches. To demonstrate this, we build a corpus of 965 news articles, where we mark all instances of speech. We then show that a supervised token-based approach outperforms all of our rule-based alternatives, even in extracting direct quotes. Next, we examine the problem of finding the speaker of each quote. For this task we annotate the same 965 news articles with links from each quote to its speaker. Using this, and three other corpora, we develop new methods and features for quote attribution, which achieve state-of-the-art accuracy on our corpus and strong results on the others. Having extracted quotes and determined who spoke them, we move on to the opinion mining part of our work. Most of the task definitions in opinion mining do not easily work with opinions in news, so we define a new task, where the aim is to classify whether quotes demonstrate support, neutrality, or opposition to a given position statement. This formulation improved annotator agreement when compared to our earlier annotation schemes. Using this we build an opinion corpus of 700 news documents covering 7 topics. In this thesis we do not attempt this full task, but we do present preliminary results

Automated Classification of Argument Stance in Student Essays: A Linguistically Motivated Approach with an Application for Supporting Argument Summarization

This study describes a set of document- and sentence-level classification models designed to automate the task of determining the argument stance (for or against) of a student argumentative essay and the task of identifying any arguments in the essay that provide reasons in support of that stance. A suggested application utilizing these models is presented which involves the automated extraction of a single-sentence summary of an argumentative essay. This summary sentence indicates the overall argument stance of the essay from which the sentence was extracted and provides a representative argument in support of that stance. A novel set of document-level stance classification features motivated by linguistic research involving stancetaking language is described. Several document-level classification models incorporating these features are trained and tested on a corpus of student essays annotated for stance. These models achieve accuracies significantly above those of two baseline models. High-accuracy features used by these models include a dependency subtree feature incorporating information about the targets of any stancetaking language in the essay text and a feature capturing the semantic relationship between the essay prompt text and stancetaking language in the essay text. We also describe the construction of a corpus of essay sentences annotated for supporting argument stance. The resulting corpus is used to train and test two sentence-level classification models. The first model is designed to classify a given sentence as a supporting argument or as not a supporting argument, while the second model is designed to classify a supporting argument as holding a for or against stance. Features motivated by influential linguistic analyses of the lexical, discourse, and rhetorical features of supporting arguments are used to build these two models, both of which achieve accuracies above their respective baseline models. An application illustrating an interesting use-case for the models presented in this dissertation is described. This application incorporates all three classification models to extract a single sentence summarizing both the overall stance of a given text along with a convincing reason in support of that stance