Society is often polarized by controversial issues, that split the population into groups of opposing views. When such issues emerge on social media, we often observe the creation of 'echo chambers', i.e., situations where like-minded people reinforce each other's opinion, but do not get exposed to the views of the opposing side. In this paper we study algorithmic techniques for bridging these chambers, and thus, reducing controversy. Specifically, we represent the discussion on a controversial issue with an endorsement graph, and cast our problem as an edge-recommendation problem on this graph. The goal of the recommendation is to reduce the controversy score of the graph, which is measured by a recently-developed metric based on random walks. At the same time, we take into account the acceptance probability of the recommended edge, which represents how likely the edge is to materialize in the endorsement graph. We propose a simple model based on a recently-developed user-level controversy score, that is competitive with state-of- the-art link-prediction algorithms. We thus aim at finding the edges that produce the largest reduction in the controversy score, in expectation. To solve this problem, we propose an efficient algorithm, which considers only a fraction of all the combinations of possible edges. Experimental results show that our algorithm is more efficient than a simple greedy heuristic, while producing comparable score reduction. Finally, a comparison with other state-of-the-art edge-addition algorithms shows that this problem is fundamentally different from what has been studied in the literature.
(c) The studies discussed above suggest that ( @math ) it is possible to nudge people by recommending content from an opposing side @cite_9 , ( @math ) extreme recommendations might not work @cite_6 , ( @math ) people in the middle'' are easier to convince @cite_22 , ( @math ) expert users and hubs are often less biased and can play a role in convincing others @cite_13 @cite_18
@cite_18 @cite_22 @cite_9 @cite_6 @cite_13
2122778642 2949121808 2085731449 2885826215
When we write or prepare to write a research paper, we always have appropriate references in mind. However, there are most likely references we have missed and should have been read and cited. As such a good citation recommendation system would not only improve our paper but, overall, the efficiency and quality of literature search. Usually, a citation's context contains explicit words explaining the citation. Using this, we propose a method that "translates" research papers into references. By considering the citations and their contexts from existing papers as parallel data written in two different "languages", we adopt the translation model to create a relationship between these two "vocabularies". Experiments on both CiteSeer and CiteULike dataset show that our approach outperforms other baseline methods and increase the precision, recall and f-measure by at least 5 to 10 , respectively. In addition, our approach runs much faster in the both training and recommending stage, which proves the effectiveness and the scalability of our work. Let @math be a @math -ary predicate over a finite alphabet. Consider a random CSP @math instance @math over @math variables with @math constraints. When @math the instance @math will be unsatisfiable with high probability, and we want to find a refutation - i.e., a certificate of unsatisfiability. When @math is the @math -ary OR predicate, this is the well studied problem of refuting random @math -SAT formulas, and an efficient algorithm is known only when @math . Understanding the density required for refutation of other predicates is important in cryptography, proof complexity, and learning theory. Previously, it was known that for a @math -ary predicate, having @math constraints suffices for refutation. We give a criterion for predicates that often yields efficient refutation algorithms at much lower densities. Specifically, if @math fails to support a @math -wise uniform distribution, then there is an efficient algorithm that refutes random CSP @math instances @math whp when @math . Indeed, our algorithm will "somewhat strongly" refute @math , certifying @math , if @math then we get the strongest possible refutation, certifying @math . This last result is new even in the context of random @math -SAT. Regarding the optimality of our @math requirement, prior work on SDP hierarchies has given some evidence that efficient refutation of random CSP @math may be impossible when @math . Thus there is an indication our algorithm's dependence on @math is optimal for every @math , at least in the context of SDP hierarchies. Along these lines, we show that our refutation algorithm can be carried out by the @math -round SOS SDP hierarchy. Finally, as an application of our result, we falsify assumptions used to show hardness-of-learning results in recent work of Daniely, Linial, and Shalev-Shwartz. Deciding whether a claim is true or false often requires a deeper understanding of the evidence supporting and contradicting the claim. However, when presented with many evidence documents, users do not necessarily read and trust them uniformly. Psychologists and other researchers have shown that users tend to follow and agree with articles and sources that hold viewpoints similar to their own, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias. This suggests that when learning about a controversial topic, human biases and viewpoints about the topic may affect what is considered "trustworthy" or credible. It is an interesting challenge to build systems that can help users overcome this bias and help them decide the truthfulness of claims. In this article, we study various factors that enable humans to acquire additional information about controversial claims in an unbiased fashion. Specifically, we designed a user study to understand how presenting evidence with contrasting viewpoints and source expertise ratings affect how users learn from the evidence documents. We find that users do not seek contrasting viewpoints by themselves, but explicitly presenting contrasting evidence helps them get a well-rounded understanding of the topic. Furthermore, explicit knowledge of the credibility of the sources and the context in which the source provides the evidence document not only affects what users read but also whether they perceive the document to be credible. Language: en Many recent papers address reading comprehension, where examples consist of (question, passage, answer) tuples. Presumably, a model must combine information from both questions and passages to predict corresponding answers. However, despite intense interest in the topic, with hundreds of published papers vying for leaderboard dominance, basic questions about the difficulty of many popular benchmarks remain unanswered. In this paper, we establish sensible baselines for the bAbI, SQuAD, CBT, CNN, and Who-did-What datasets, finding that question- and passage-only models often perform surprisingly well. On @math out of @math bAbI tasks, passage-only models achieve greater than @math accuracy, sometimes matching the full model. Interestingly, while CBT provides @math -sentence stories only the last is needed for comparably accurate prediction. By comparison, SQuAD and CNN appear better-constructed.