skip to main content
10.1145/3625007.3627336acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Discovering ideological structures in representation learning spaces in recommender systems on social media data

Published:15 March 2024Publication History

ABSTRACT

Recommender systems in social platforms attract attention in part because of their potential impact over political phenomena, such as polarization or fragmentation of online communities. These research topics are also important because of the need for understanding systemic effects in view of upcoming risk-oriented AI regulation in the EU and the US. A common approach leverages outcomes of recommendations to audit recommender systems. A different approach is that of explainability, seeking to render recommendation mechanisms intelligible to humans, potentially enabling both auditing and actionable design tools. This second approach is particularly challenging in the context of online systems of political opinions because of the intrinsic unobservability of opinions. In this article we leverage multi-dimensional political opinion estimation of large online populations (along a left-right dimension but also along other political dimensions) to investigate latent spaces in representation learning computed by recommender systems. We train a recommender based on ubiquitous collaborative filtering principles using data on content sharing on Twitter by a large population, evaluating accuracy and extracting a latent space representation leveraged by the recommender. On the other hand, we leverage multi-dimensional political opinion inference to position users in political spaces representing their opinions. We then show for the first time the relation between latent representations leveraged by a recommender system and the spatial representation of users. We show that some dimensions learned by the recommender capture ideological positions of users, bridging politics and algorithmics in our social and algorithmic system, opening a path towards political explainability of AI.

References

  1. N. Gaumont, M. Panahi, and D. Chavalarias, "Reconstruction of the socio-semantic dynamics of political activist Twitter networks---Method and application to the 2017 French presidential election," PLOS ONE, vol. 13, no. 9, p. e0201879, Sep. 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. S. Messing and S. J. Westwood, "Selective Exposure in the Age of Social Media: Endorsements Trump Partisan Source Affiliation When Selecting News Online," Communication Research, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1042--1063, Dec. 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. W. L. Bennett and S. Iyengar, "A New Era of Minimal Effects? the Changing Foundations of Political Communication," Journal of Communication, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 707--731, Dec. 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. C. A. Gomez-Uribe and N. Hunt, "The Netflix Recommender System: Algorithms, Business Value, and Innovation," ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 13:1--13:19, Dec. 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. D. Jannach and M. Jugovac, "Measuring the Business Value of Recommender Systems," ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 16:1--16:23, Dec. 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. O'Callaghan, D. Greene, M. Conway, J. Carthy, and P. Cunningham, "Down the (White) Rabbit Hole: The Extreme Right and Online Recommender Systems," Social Science Computer Review, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 459--478, Aug. 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. A. J. B. Chaney, B. M. Stewart, and B. E. Engelhardt, "How algorithmic confounding in recommendation systems increases homogeneity and decreases utility," in Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, ser. RecSys '18. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, Sep. 2018, pp. 224--232.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. Haim, A. Graefe, and H.-B. Brosius, "Burst of the Filter Bubble?" Digital Journalism, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 330--343, Mar. 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Y. Benkler, R. Faris, and H. Roberts, Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford University Press, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. E. Bakshy, S. Messing, and L. A. Adamic, "Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on facebook," Science, vol. 348, no. 6239, pp. 1130--1132, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. P. Ramaciotti, R. Lamarche-Perrin, R. Fournier-S'Niehotta, R. Poulain, L. Tabourier, and F. Tarissan, "Measuring diversity in heterogeneous information networks," Theoretical computer science, vol. 859, pp. 80--115, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. J. Bobadilla, F. Ortega, A. Hernando, and A. Gutiérrez, "Recommender systems survey," Knowledge-based systems, vol. 46, pp. 109--132, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. P. Ramaciotti Morales and J.-P. Cointet, "Auditing the effect of social network recommendations on polarization in geometrical ideological spaces," in Proceedings of the 15th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, 2021, pp. 627--632.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. R. Marcinkevičs and J. E. Vogt, "Interpretability and Explainability: A Machine Learning Zoo Mini-tour," Dec. 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. N. Tintarev and J. Masthoff, "A Survey of Explanations in Recommender Systems," in 2007 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Data Engineering Workshop, Apr. 2007, pp. 801--810.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. R. Bakker, S. Jolly, and J. Polk, "Complexity in the European party space: Exploring dimensionality with experts," European Union Politics, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 219--245, Jun. 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. P. Ramaciotti and Z. Vagena, "Embedding social graphs from multiple national settings in common empirical opinion spaces," in 2022 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM). IEEE, 2022, pp. 60--67.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. P. Ramaciotti Morales, J.-P. Cointet, and G. M. Zolotoochin, "Unfolding the dimensionality structure of social networks in ideological embeddings," Aug 2021. [Online]. Available: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03315759Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. P. Ramaciotti Morales, J.-P. Cointet, G. Muñoz Zolotoochin, A. Fernández Peralta, G. Iñiguez, and A. Pournaki, "Inferring attitudinal spaces in social networks," Social Network Analysis and Mining, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1--18, 2023.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. R. Bakker, L. Hooghe, S. Jolly, G. Marks, J. Polk, J. Rovny, M. Steenbergen, and M. A. Vachudova, "2019 chapel hill expert survey," Chapel Hill, 2020, www.chesdata.eu.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Y. Koren, "Factorization meets the neighborhood: a multifaceted collaborative filtering model," in Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 2008, pp. 426--434.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. J. Bobadilla, F. Ortega, A. Hernando, and A. Gutiérrez, "Recommender systems survey," Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 46, pp. 109--132, Jul. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Cichocki and A.-H. Phan, "Fast Local Algorithms for Large Scale Nonnegative Matrix and Tensor Factorizations," IEICE Transactions on Fundamentals of Electronics, Communications and Computer Sciences, vol. E92.A, no. 3, pp. 708--721, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. D. Lee and H. S. Seung, "Algorithms for Non-negative Matrix Factorization," in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 13. MIT Press, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. C. Boutsidis and E. Gallopoulos, "SVD based initialization: A head start for nonnegative matrix factorization," Pattern Recognition, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1350--1362, Apr. 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. J. Kennedy and R. Eberhart, "Particle swarm optimization," in Proceedings of ICNN'95 - International Conference on Neural Networks, vol. 4, Nov. 1995, pp. 1942--1948 vol.4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. A. Gunawardana and G. Shani, "A Survey of Accuracy Evaluation Metrics of Recommendation Tasks," Journal of Machine Learning Research, pp. 2935--2962, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. W. Hu, M. Fey, M. Zitnik, Y. Dong, H. Ren, B. Liu, M. Catasta, and J. Leskovec, "Open Graph Benchmark: Datasets for Machine Learning on Graphs," Feb. 2021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Discovering ideological structures in representation learning spaces in recommender systems on social media data
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          ASONAM '23: Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining
          November 2023
          835 pages
          ISBN:9798400704093
          DOI:10.1145/3625007

          Copyright © 2023 ACM

          Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 15 March 2024

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          ASONAM '23 Paper Acceptance Rate53of145submissions,37%Overall Acceptance Rate116of549submissions,21%

          Upcoming Conference

          KDD '24
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)15
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader