Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Parsing argued opinion structure in Twitter content

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we address the opinion argumentation mining issue from Twitter data with the objective of further analyzing Twitter users’ preferences and motivations. After introducing the argued opinion definition and its different elements, we propose an argued opinion mining system called TOMAS where we present an end-to-end approach to parse the structure of the argued opinion in order to identify its elements. Our suggested system consists of four consecutive sub-tasks, namely: (1) opinion-topic detection, (2) argumentative opinions identification, (3) argument components detection, and (4) argumentative relation recognition. The proposed system optimizes the argued opinion structure using different classification models. The experimental study is conducted on the MC2 Lab CLEF2017 tweets corpus while considering various comparative baselines. We highlight that our system significantly outperforms the majority baselines and significantly outperforms challenging existing approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.uncg.edu/cmp/ArgMining2014/,SICSA

  2. http://www.arg-tech.org/index.php/sicsa-workshop-on-argument-mining-2014/

  3. http://wwwsop.inria.fr/members/Serena.Villata/BiCi2014/frontiersARG-NLP.html

  4. http://clef2018.clef-initiative.eu/

  5. https://mc2.talne.eu/

  6. http://mpqa.cs.pitt.edu/lexicons/subjlexicon

  7. http://research.nii.ac.jp/uno/code/LCM-seq.html

  8. : http://www.cs.uic.edu/∼liub/FBS/sentiment-analysis.htmllexicon

  9. https://nlp.stanford.edu/software/CRF-NER.shtml

  10. https://code.google.com/p/word2vec/

  11. https://www.nltk.org

  12. https://www.RudolphAcademy.com

  13. http://hltfbk.github.io/Excitement-Open-Platform/

References

  • Arun, R., Suresh, V., Veni Madhavan, C., Narasimha Murthy, M. (2010). On finding the natural number of topics with Latent Dirichlet Allocation: Some observations. Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 391–402.

  • Barnaghi, P., Ghaffari, P., Breslin, J.G. (2016). Opinion mining and sentiment polarity on twitter and correlation between events and sentiment. In: 2016 IEEE Second international conference on big data computing service and applications (bigdataservice) (pp. 52–57).

  • Blair, S. J., Bi, Y., Mulvenna, M. D. (2020). Aggregated topic models for increasing social media topic coherence. Applied Intelligence, 50(1), 138–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., Jordan, M.I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Boltužić, F., & Šnajder, J. (2014). Back up your stance: Recognizing arguments in online discussions. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining (pp. 49–58). Baltimore: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Bosc, T., Cabrio, E., Villata, S. (2016a). DART: a Dataset of Arguments and their Relations on Twitter. In Proceedings of the 10th edition of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (pp. 1258–1263). Slovenia: Portoroz.

  • Bosc, T., Cabrio, E., Villata, S. (2016b). Tweeties squabbling: Positive and negative results in applying argument mining on social media. In Computational Models of Argument - Proceedings of COMMA (pp. 21–32). Potsdam.

  • Cabrio, E., & Villata, S. (2013). A natural language bipolar argumentation approach to support users in online debate interactions. Argument & Computation, 4 (3), 209–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, J., Xia, T., Li, J., Zhang, Y., Tang, S. (2009). A density-based method for adaptive LDA model selection. Neurocomputing, 72(7), 1775–1781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chazal, F., Lieutier, A., Montana, N. (2009). Discrete critical values: a general framework for silhouettes computation. Comput. Graph. Forum, 28(5), 1509–1518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, T., Xu, R., He, Y., Wang, X. (2017). Improving sentiment analysis via sentence type classification using biLSTM-CRF and CNN. Expert Systems With Applications, 72, 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coates, A., & Ng, A. Y. (2012). Learning feature representations with K-Means. In Neural networks: Tricks of the trade - second edition (pp. 561–580).

  • Collobert, R., Weston, J., Bottou, L., Karlen, M., Kavukcuoglu, K., Kuksa, P. (2011). Natural language processing (almost) from scratch. Machine Learning Research, 12, 2493–2537.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cossu, J., Gonzalo, J., Hajjem, M., Hamon, O., Latiri, C., Sanjuan, E. (2018). CLEF MC2 2018 lab technical overview of cross language microblog search and argumentative mining. In Working notes of CLEF 2018 - conference and labs of the evaluation forum. Avignon.

  • Dagan, I., Glickman, O., Magnini, B. (2006). The PASCAL recognising textual entailment challenge. In Machine learning challenges. Evaluating predictive uncertainty, visual object classification, and recognising tectual entailment (pp. 177–190): Springer.

  • Dusmanu, M., Cabrio, E., Villata, S. (2017). Argument mining on Twitter: Arguments, facts and sources. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 2317–2322). Copenhagen: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Eckle-Kohler, J., Kluge, R., Gurevych, I. (2015). On the role of discourse markers for discriminating claims and premises in argumentative discourse. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 2236–2242). Lisbon: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Ermakova, L., Mothe, J., Sanjuan, E. (2017). CLEF 2017 microblog cultural contextualization content analysis task overview. In Working notes of CLEF 2017 - conference and labs of the evaluation forum. Dublin.

  • Forman, G., & Scholz, M. (2010). Apples-to-apples in cross-validation studies: pitfalls in classifier performance measurement. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 12(1), 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, J. B. (2011). Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments: A theory of argument structure. Walter de Gruyter.

  • Garcia-Villalba, M. P., Saint-Dizier, P. (2012). A framework to extract arguments in opinion texts. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence (IJCINI), 6(3), 62–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, D., Muresan, S., Wacholder, N., Aakhus, M., Mitsui, M. (2014). Analyzing argumentative discourse units in online interactions. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining (pp. 39–48). Baltimore: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Goudas, T., Louizos, C., Petasis, G., Karkaletsis, V. (2014). Argument extraction from news, blogs, and social media. In Likas, A., Blekas, K., & Kalles, D. (Eds.) Artificial intelligence: Methods and applications (pp. 287–299). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

  • Griffiths, T. L., & Steyvers, M. (2004). Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences, 101(suppl 1), 5228–5235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosse, K., Chesṅevar, C. I., Maguitman, A. G. (2012). An argument-based approach to mining opinions from Twitter. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Agreement Technologies, AT 2012 (pp. 408–422). Dubrovnik.

  • Grosse, K., González, M., Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A.G. (2015). Integrating argumentation and sentiment analysis for mining opinions from Twitter. AI Communications, 28(3), 387–401.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hajjem, M., Cossu, J., Latiri, C., Sanjuan, E. (2018). CLEF MC2 2018 lab overview. In Experimental IR meets multilinguality, multimodality, and interaction - 9th international conference of the CLEF association, CLEF 2018 (pp. 302–308). Avignon.

  • Imran, M., Elbassuoni, S., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., Meier, P. (2013). Extracting information nuggets from disaster- related messages in social media. In Inproceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management. Baden-Baden.

  • Jain, A. K. (2010). Data clustering: 50 years beyond K-Means. Pattern Recognition Letters, 31(8), 651–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty, J. D., McCallum, A., Pereira, F. C. N. (2001). Conditional random fields: Probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 282–289). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

  • Le, Q., & Mikolov, T. (2014). Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 32, ICML’14. JMLR.org (pp. 1188–1196).

  • Levy, R., Bilu, Y., Hershcovich, D., Aharoni, E., Slonim, N. (2014). Context dependent claim detection. In Proceedings of COLING, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers (pp. 1489–1500). Dublin: Dublin City University and Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Lippi, M., & Torroni, P. (2016). MARGOT: a web server for argumentation mining. Expert Systems With Applications, 65, 292–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnini, B., Zanoli, R., Dagan, I., Eichler, K., Neumann, G., Noh, T. G., Pado, S., Stern, A., Levy, O. (2014). The excitement open platform for textual inferences. In Proceedings of 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations (pp. 43–48).

  • Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G., Dean, J. (2013). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems - Volume 2, NIPS’13 (pp. 3111–3119). Red Hook: Curran Associates Inc.

  • Mochales, R., & Moens, M. F. (2011). Argumentation mining. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 19(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakahara, T., Uno, T., Yada, K., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (2010). extracting promising sequential patterns from RFID data using the LCM sequence. In Setchi, R., & Jordanov, I. (Eds.) Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems (pp. 244–253). Berlin: Springer.

  • Nguyen, N., & Guo, Y. (2007). Comparisons of sequence labeling algorithms and extensions. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML ’07 (pp. 681–688). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

  • Nguyen, H., & Litman, D. (2015). Extracting argument and domain words for identifying argument components in texts. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining (pp. 22–28). Denver: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Ouertatani, A., & Latiri, C. (2017). Opinion polarity detection in Twitter data combining sequence mining and topic modeling. In Working notes of CLEF 2017 - conference and labs of the evaluation forum. Dublin.

  • Ouertatani, A., Gasmi, G., Latiri, C. (2018). Argued opinion extraction from festivals and cultural events on Twitter. In Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information & Engineering Systems: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference KES-2018 (pp. 205–213). Belgrade.

  • Palau, R. M., & Moens, M. F. (2009). Argumentation mining: The detection, classification and structure of arguments in text. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL ’09 (pp. 98–107). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

  • Palau, R. M., & Moens, M. (2011). Argumentation mining. Artifical Intelligence and Law, 19(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found. Trends Inf. Retr., 2(1–2), 1–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pang, B., Lee, L., Vaithyanathan, S. (2002). Thumbs up? sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. arXiv preprint 0205070.

  • Park, J., & Cardie, C. (2014). Identifying appropriate support for propositions in online user comments. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining (pp. 29–38). Baltimore: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Park, J., Katiyar, A., Yang, B. (2015). Conditional random fields for identifying appropriate types of support for propositions in online user comments. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining (pp. 39–44). Denver: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Ramshaw, L., & Marcus, M. (1995). Text chunking using transformation-based learning. In Third workshop on very large corpora.

  • Rinott, R., Dankin, L., Alzate Perez, C., Khapra, M. M., Aharoni, E., Slonim, N. (2015). Show me your evidence - an automatic method for context dependent evidence detection. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 440–450). Lisbon: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Ritter, A., Clark, S., Mausam, E.O. (2011). Named entity recognition in tweets: An experimental study. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 1524–1534). Edinburgh: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Sardianos, C., Katakis, I. M., Petasis, G., Karkaletsis, V. (2015). Argument extraction from news. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining, ArgMining@HLT-NAACL (pp. 56–66). Denver.

  • Stab, C., & Gurevych, I. (2014). Identifying argumentative discourse structures in persuasive essays. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (pp. 46–56). Doha: Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Stab, C., & Gurevych, I. (2017). Parsing argumentation structures in persuasive essays. Computational Linguistics, 43(3), 619–659.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Toni, F., & Torroni, P. (2012). Bottom-up argumentation. In Modgil, S., Oren, N., Toni, F. (Eds.) Theorie and applications of formal argumentation (pp. 249–262). Berlin: Springer.

  • Toutanova, K., Klein, D., Manning, C. D., Singer, Y. (2003). Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology - Volume 1 (pp. 173–180): Association for Computational Linguistics.

  • Zainuddin, N., Selamat, A., Ibrahim, R. (2018). Hybrid sentiment classification on Twitter aspect-based sentiment analysis. Applied Intelligence, 48(5), 1218–1232.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ENSI-STICODE, University of Manouba, Tunis, Tunisia

    Asma Ouertatani

  2. LISI research Laboratory, INSAT, University of Carthage, Tunis, Tunisia

    Ghada Gasmi

  3. LIPAH research Laboratory, FST, Tunis EL Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia

    Chiraz Latiri

Authors
  1. Asma Ouertatani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ghada Gasmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chiraz Latiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Asma Ouertatani.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ouertatani, A., Gasmi, G. & Latiri, C. Parsing argued opinion structure in Twitter content. J Intell Inf Syst 56, 327–353 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-020-00620-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-020-00620-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation