Subjective questions such as does neymar dive', or is clinton lying', or is trump a fascist', are popular queries to web search engines, as can be seen by autocompletion suggestions on Google, Yahoo and Bing. In the era of cognitive computing, beyond search, they could be handled as hypotheses issued for evaluation. Our vision is to leverage on unstructured data and metadata of the rich user-generated multimedia that is often shared as material evidence in favor or against hypotheses in social media platforms. In this paper we present two preliminary experiments along those lines and discuss challenges for a cognitive computing system that collects material evidence from user-generated multimedia towards aggregating it into some form of collective decision on the hypothesis.
. Our work is related to the so-called debating' technologies at IBM @cite_2 . Their work is strongly based on machine learning methods to track correlated text passages that may be spread over a corpus. Going beyond the observational hypotheses that are more on our sight and are typical of social media, the goal is to enable eliciting all kind of textual information that may be relevant as evidence to decide on a claim. An example is: (topic) ''; (claim) ''; (evidence) .'' To date, as far as we know this is yet a fully NLP project, which does not consider multimedia data for grounding on material evidence.
@cite_2
2604591718 2555891875 2250653239 1599528172
Health surveillance systems based on online user-generated content often rely on the identification of textual markers that are related to a target disease. Given the high volume of available data, these systems benefit from an automatic feature selection process. This is accomplished either by applying statistical learning techniques, which do not consider the semantic relationship between the selected features and the inference task, or by developing labour-intensive text classifiers. In this paper, we use neural word embeddings, trained on social media content from Twitter, to determine, in an unsupervised manner, how strongly textual features are semantically linked to an underlying health concept. We then refine conventional feature selection methods by a priori operating on textual variables that are sufficiently close to a target concept. Our experiments focus on the supervised learning problem of estimating influenza-like illness rates from Google search queries. A "flu infection" concept is formulated and used to reduce spurious and potentially confounding features that were selected by previously applied approaches. In this way, we also address forms of scepticism regarding the appropriateness of the feature space, alleviating potential cases of overfitting. Ultimately, the proposed hybrid feature selection method creates a more reliable model that, according to our empirical analysis, improves the inference performance (Mean Absolute Error) of linear and nonlinear regressors by 12 and 28.7 , respectively. The utilization of social media material in journalistic workflows is increasing, demanding automated methods for the identification of mis- and disinformation. Since textual contradiction across social media posts can be a signal of rumorousness, we seek to model how claims in Twitter posts are being textually contradicted. We identify two different contexts in which contradiction emerges: its broader form can be observed across independently posted tweets and its more specific form in threaded conversations. We define how the two scenarios differ in terms of central elements of argumentation: claims and conversation structure. We design and evaluate models for the two scenarios uniformly as 3-way Recognizing Textual Entailment tasks in order to represent claims and conversation structure implicitly in a generic inference model, while previous studies used explicit or no representation of these properties. To address noisy text, our classifiers use simple similarity features derived from the string and part-of-speech level. Corpus statistics reveal distribution differences for these features in contradictory as opposed to non-contradictory tweet relations, and the classifiers yield state of the art performance. Analyzing arguments in user-generated Web discourse has recently gained attention in argumentation mining, an evolving field of NLP. Current approaches, which employ fully-supervised machine learning, are usually domain dependent and suffer from the lack of large and diverse annotated corpora. However, annotating arguments in discourse is costly, error-prone, and highly context-dependent. We asked whether leveraging unlabeled data in a semi-supervised manner can boost the performance of argument component identification and to which extent is the approach independent of domain and register. We propose novel features that exploit clustering of unlabeled data from debate portals based on a word embeddings representation. Using these features, we significantly outperform several baselines in the cross-validation, cross-domain, and cross-register evaluation scenarios. We propose a framework for inferring the latent attitudes or preferences of users by performing probabilistic first-order logical reasoning over the social network graph. Our method answers questions about Twitter users like Does this user like sushi? or Is this user a New York Knicks fan? by building a probabilistic model that reasons over user attributes (the user's location or gender) and the social network (the user's friends and spouse), via inferences like homophily (I am more likely to like sushi if spouse or friends like sushi, I am more likely to like the Knicks if I live in New York). The algorithm uses distant supervision, semi-supervised data harvesting and vector space models to extract user attributes (e.g. spouse, education, location) and preferences (likes and dislikes) from text. The extracted propositions are then fed into a probabilistic reasoner (we investigate both Markov Logic and Probabilistic Soft Logic). Our experiments show that probabilistic logical reasoning significantly improves the performance on attribute and relation extraction, and also achieves an F-score of 0.791 at predicting a users likes or dislikes, significantly better than two strong baselines.