Rumour stance classification, the task that determines if each tweet in a collection discussing a rumour is supporting, denying, questioning or simply commenting on the rumour, has been attracting substantial interest. Here we introduce a novel approach that makes use of the sequence of transitions observed in tree-structured conversation threads in Twitter. The conversation threads are formed by harvesting users' replies to one another, which results in a nested tree-like structure. Previous work addressing stance classification task in Twitter has treated each tweet as a separate unit. Here we analyse tweets by virtue of their position in a sequence and test two sequential classifiers, Linear-Chain CRF and Tree CRF, each of which makes different assumptions about the conversation structure. We experiment with eight Twitter datasets, collected during breaking news, and show that exploiting the sequential structure of Twitter conversations achieves significant improvements over the non-sequential methods. Our work is the first to model Twitter conversations as a tree structure in this manner, introducing a novel way of tackling NLP tasks on Twitter conversations.
Community Question Answering (cQA) provides new interesting research directions to the traditional Question Answering (QA) field, e.g., the exploitation of the interaction between users and the structure of related posts. In this context, we organized SemEval2015 Task 3 on Answer Selection in cQA, which included two subtasks: (a) classifying answers as good, bad, or potentially relevant with respect to the question, and (b) answering a YES NO question with yes, no, or unsure, based on the list of all answers. We set subtask A for Arabic and English on two relatively different cQA domains, i.e., the Qatar Living website for English, and a Quran-related website for Arabic. We used crowdsourcing on Amazon Mechanical Turk to label a large English training dataset, which we released to the research community. Thirteen teams participated in the challenge with a total of 61 submissions: 24 primary and 37 contrastive. The best systems achieved an official score (macro-averaged F1) of 57.19 and 63.7 for the English subtasks A and B, and 78.55 for the Arabic subtask A.