Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Negative Ties Highlight Hidden Extremes in Social Media Polarization

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that on the Spanish news-aggregator Menéame, only signed networks that include downvotes can separate genuinely extreme users—such as pro-Russia voters in the Ukraine war—from ordinary left-wing critics, because…

desk verdict New Menéame dataset and a careful signed-vs-unsigned comparison, but the 'only' claim about negative ties needs an additional unsigned baseline to hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05590 v4 pith:VR5REJ45 submitted 2025-01-09 physics.soc-ph cs.SI

Elena Candellone , Shazia'Ayn Babul , Özgür Togay , Alexandre Bovet , Javier Garcia-Bernardo This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-phcs.SI PACS 89.65.-s
keywords signednetworksnegativetiesstructuralpolarizationMenéameSHEEPembeddingcorrespondenceanalysissocialmediavotingonlineextremism
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks what negative interactions—downvotes on comments and stories—reveal about online political polarization that positive-only data cannot. Using eight months of voting data from Menéame, a Spanish news-aggregator platform, the authors build two networks of the same users, one signed and one positive-only, and embed both with two spectral methods. The resulting maps largely agree on who sits on the left and right, but they diverge at the extremes: only the signed method separates users who upvote pro-Russian outlets such as RT from general anti-NATO left-wing users, and only it tags far-left users who systematically downvote the far right. Relatively few votes on the platform are negative (about 3%), yet the paper argues they carry the information that marks the most antagonistic users—the ones positive-only methods place in the same bucket as their less confrontational ideological peers. If correct, the implication is that polarization measures built on likes or upvotes alone capture the ideological center while mis-ranking the fighting edge.

What carries the argument

The central object is SHEEP (Signed Hamiltonian Eigenvector Embedding for Proximity), a spectral embedding built on the repelling Laplacian $L_r = D^+ - A^+ - D^- - A^-$: positive edges act as springs that pull connected nodes together while negative edges act as anti-springs that push them apart, and the first few eigenvectors of $L_r$ give each node a position in a low-dimensional space. The paper reads the first principal component of that position as a user's attitude toward a topic. Correspondence Analysis (CA), a singular-value decomposition of the standardized residual matrix of rows (users) against columns (outlets or other users), supplies the positive-only counterfactual. To prove that the signed-unsigned gap comes from the negative edges rather than the algorithm choice, the paper constructs a SHEEP null model that replaces every missing edge in the unsigned network with an artificial negative weight, mimicking CA's implicit assumption that non-interaction means dissimilarity; the null embedding tracks CA almost perfectly, confirming that the real negative edges are the carrier of the new information.

What would settle it

Re-run the Russia-Ukraine user network with one change: give the zero-weight missing edges a small negative weight calibrated to the observed downvote base rate on Menéame rather than treating them as neutral, and re-compute the SHEEP extremes. If the RT-upvoting clique then stops being uniquely extreme, or if CA recovers the same tails under that coding, the paper's central distinction collapses. A complementary check: among user pairs with no recorded interaction, look at the sign of the first vote they later exchange; a predominantly negative sign would mean absence itself carries a whiff of dissent, contradicting the neutrality assumption the result depends on.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery, stated on its own terms, is that the signed SHEEP embedding and the unsigned Correspondence Analysis are near-identical in their bulk ranking of users and news outlets—Spearman correlations of 88% on the Russia-Ukraine topic and 80% on general politics—yet they disagree precisely where it matters: the tails of the attitude distribution. In the Russia-Ukraine network, SHEEP places users who upvote Russia Today, Diario Octubre, and Actualidad RT at the hard extreme of the anti-NATO faction, while CA maps those same users to the same ideological level as left-wing outlets like ctxt and Público. In the Broad Politics network, only SHEEP separates far-left users who cast negative votes against the far right from other left-wing users. The paper concludes that negative ties are the signal that reveals which users are not merely opposed in opinion but actively antagonistic toward the opposing faction, and it verifies that the difference comes from the edges themselves: a null model that feeds CA's implicit coding of absent edges as dissimilarity into SHEEP makes the two embeddings converge (Pearson correlations of 0.83 for Russia and 0.94 for politics).

Load-bearing premise

The claim that negative ties reveal hidden extremes rests on coding an absent interaction as a neutral zero-weight edge in the signed network; if non-interaction between two users actually signals disagreement, then positive-only methods would already recover the extremes and the contrast the paper draws would be an artifact of that coding choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On platforms that record only positive engagement (likes, retweets, upvotes), structural-polarization maps will systematically mis-rank the most hostile users: the extremes of the embedding are occupied by negative-vote-heavy users only when downvotes are part of the input.
  • For the Ukraine-war discussion specifically, the signed network separates the RT-upvoting clique as an extreme faction, so any monitoring or moderation built on positive interactions alone would fail to flag the users most associated with pro-Kremlin content on Menéame.
  • SHEEP and CA agree strongly on bulk ideology, but the SHEEP null model (missing edges recoded as negative) reproduces CA nearly perfectly (Pearson correlations 0.83 and 0.94), pinning the signed-unsigned gap on the real negative edges rather than on the choice of embedding algorithm.
  • Only SHEEP separates far-left users who cast negative votes against the far right, and the k-means faction analysis shows these cross-faction negative votes are concentrated in the extremal bins, so signed embeddings change not just who is ranked where but the measured direction of antagonism between factions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the signed and unsigned networks differ mainly in how missing edges are coded, the 'hiddenness' of the extremes is conditional on Menéame's interaction semantics: on a platform where absence signals disagreement, positive-only data could recover the same tails, and the paper's achievement would be a coding correction rather than a new social fact.
  • The finding that far-left users downvote the far right while far-right users stay isolated is presented as platform-specific; a testable generalization for other signed platforms (for instance, Reddit communities with visible downvotes) is that the direction of cross-faction negative voting follows the platform's ideological skew rather than any universal asymmetry.
  • The signed embedding's tail membership gives unlabeled data a usable signal: the tails could serve as pseudo-labels for training classifiers on positive-only features, testing whether antagonism can be predicted from interaction volume and structural position or whether the vote sign itself is irreducible.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies polarization on the Menéame social news platform using a dual-method approach: SHEEP, a spectral embedding for signed networks, and Correspondence Analysis (CA) on unsigned networks. The authors construct user-to-user and user-to-outlet networks from voting data, extract topics with BERTopic and hSBM, and compare how the two embedding methods position users and news outlets on political dimensions. The core empirical claim is that only the signed method (SHEEP) identifies ideologically extreme users who engage in antagonistic behavior, such as users who upvote Russia-affiliated outlets in the Russia-Ukraine topic, while the unsigned method (CA) conflates these users with ordinary left-wing users. The paper also contributes a publicly available dataset and code, and validates outlet ideology against external Twitter-based and PoliticalWatch benchmarks.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper would provide a substantive empirical demonstration that negative ties carry information about hidden ideological extremes that positive-only network methods miss. The dataset release and the external validation of outlet embeddings are clear strengths: the Twitter and PoliticalWatch comparisons (Section 2.6, Figures A8-A9) give independent anchors for interpretation, and the analysis is generally careful and transparent about parameter choices. The claim of uniqueness, however, is currently supported only by a single comparison of two different algorithms on two different network representations, which makes the significance conditional on additional controls.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3.2.1; Appendix A.9] The central claim that 'only by incorporating negative ties can we identify ideologically extreme users' is not established because the comparison confounds the data source (signed vs. unsigned) with the algorithm (SHEEP vs. CA). The paper compares SHEEP on the signed network to CA on the unsigned network, but CA uses chi-square residual standardization that places low-degree users at the extremes, whereas SHEEP's degree-normalized repelling Laplacian pulls low-degree users toward the center; the paper itself reports degree-embedding correlations of 36% for SHEEP versus 22% for CA (Section 3.2.1). The null model in Appendix A.9 replaces missing edges with artificial negative ties of weight -50 and shows that this CA-like input makes SHEEP correlate with CA, but it does not test whether a positive-only version of the same spectral algorithm, or any other unsigned spectral method, already separates RT-upvoting users from left-wing users. A positive-only SHEEP control, or an equivalent unsigned spectral embedding with the same degree normalization, is needed to rule out that the observed tail differences are an artifact of algorithmic regularization rather than of negative-tie information.
  2. [Section 2.3, footnote 4] The coding of missing interactions is load-bearing: the signed adjacency matrix sets A_ij = 0 both when users have not interacted and when their positive and negative interactions balance, while the unsigned network treats missing edges as absent and the null model (Appendix A.9) treats them as negative ties of weight -50. The central finding that negative ties reveal hidden extremes depends on zero-weight missing edges being the correct coding. If missing edges in fact signal dissimilarity, the extremes might be recoverable without explicit negative ties. The authors should provide a robustness analysis that varies the coding of non-interactions, for example by assigning them small negative weights or by thresholding low-weight edges, and show that the RT-upvoting users remain extreme under these alternatives.
  3. [Appendix A.9] The null model that is used to argue that differences between SHEEP and CA are due to negative ties relies on an arbitrary artificial weight of -50 for all missing edges, chosen only because it is 'a similar magnitude to the largest positive links'. The reported correlations between the SHEEP null model and CA (0.83 for Russia, 0.94 for Politics) may depend on this specific value. The authors should perform a sensitivity analysis over a plausible range of negative weights and report whether the conclusion that the null model aligns with CA is stable; without this, the null-model comparison does not tightly constrain the role of real negative ties.
  4. [Section 2.3] The authors remove stories that only received positive votes before constructing the networks, stating that such stories 'do not polarize the discussion'. This is a post-hoc filter that could affect which users appear extreme, because it removes a potentially large amount of positive interaction data and changes degree distributions. The robustness of the RT-upvoting-extreme finding to this filtering decision should be checked, for example by repeating the analysis with all stories included or with an alternative criterion for controversial stories, and verifying that the main tail differences between SHEEP and CA persist.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.3, footnote 4] The footnote states that neutral interactions (zero-sum votes) constitute only 0.74% of the dataset, but it then equates non-interaction with a null sum. This is a strong assumption that deserves a fuller justification, especially because the unsigned network and the null model treat non-interaction differently.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The caption says 'schematic representation of one of the stores in the platform', which appears to be a typo for 'stories'.
  3. [Section 3.2.2] The sentence 'far-left extremists use negative votes strategically to target the opposing extreme faction' uses causal and intentional language; the analysis demonstrates a correlation between extreme structural position and negative voting behavior, not strategic intent. A more neutral phrasing would be appropriate.
  4. [Appendix A.6] The binning procedure divides the number of users by a normalization constant set to 1.5, but no sensitivity analysis is given for this choice; since the k-means clusters and the resulting interpretation of faction behavior depend on the bins, a brief robustness note would be useful.
  5. [Abstract; Section 1] The word 'only' in the abstract and introduction overstates the current evidence, which is based on one platform, two topics, and one pair of methods. I suggest softening the claim to reflect the scope of the empirical comparison, for example 'in this dataset' or 'with the methods considered here'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SHEEP is co-authored prior work, but the Menéame embeddings are validated against external ideology benchmarks and the null-model control addresses the algorithm confound.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the prohibited sense: no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input. SHEEP is prior work co-authored by a member of the present team, but it is published in Communications Physics and had been validated on US House co-sponsorship data; more importantly, the present paper does not lean on that prior validation for its conclusions. The outlet embeddings are checked against an independently constructed Twitter-based ideology measure and against PoliticalWatch (96% correlation), and the user-level 'extreme' labels are checked against story-vote behavior and outlet votes. The central empirical claim—that RT-upvoting users sit at the anti-NATO extreme under SHEEP while CA conflates them with left-wing outlets—is an output of the algorithm on real signed data, not an input. The Appendix A.9 null model, which replaces real negative ties with artificial negative edges on all missing pairs, is a genuine control: it drives SHEEP toward CA (Pearson 0.83/0.94), showing the observed divergence tracks real negative-tie information rather than merely the choice of spectral algorithm. One partial caveat is that SHEEP's repelling Laplacian is explicitly constructed to push negative-edge endpoints apart, so the statement that extreme users have more negative links partly restates the method's objective; however, the external validation of who those extreme users are (pro-Russia/RT voters, far-left media voters) is not fixed by the construction. The word 'only' in the abstract is stronger than the evidence—only a single unsigned baseline (CA) is compared, and no positive-only variant of SHEEP is tested—but that is a completeness/correctness limitation, not circularity. The self-citation to [51] is thus not load-bearing, and the paper is otherwise self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on modeling choices about how missing and negative interactions are encoded, plus the usual spectral assumptions of the embedding methods. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. The most fragile inputs are the zero-weight coding of missing edges and the -50 weight in the null model, neither of which is derived from data or given a sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (4)
  • Artificial negative tie weight in null model = -50 (all missing edges)
    Appendix A.9: replaces all non-links with a negative edge of weight -50, chosen as 'a similar magnitude to the largest positive links'; the attribution of embedding differences to negative ties depends on this arbitrary magnitude.
  • Active user threshold = >10 votes
    Section 2.3: 'We only consider active users who cast more than 10 votes during the period studied.' This threshold determines which users are in the network and affects extremity rankings.
  • Number-of-bins normalization constant = 1.5
    Appendix A.6: 'The number of bins was determined by taking the square root of the total number of users ... and dividing by a normalization constant, which we set to 1.5.' Affects k-means faction detection.
  • BERTopic hyperparameters = n_neighbors=50, n_components=75, min_cluster_size=50, min_sample=1, cluster_selection_epsilon=3e-6
    Appendix A.2: chosen via sensitivity analysis; determines the macro-topics that define the two analyzed networks.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Negative votes on Menéame primarily express disapproval rather than spam or moderation.
    Section 2.1: platform guidelines say downvotes are for spam, but authors assert 'in practice, negative votes are used primarily to express disapproval'; the interpretation of negative ties as antagonism depends on this.
  • domain assumption Absence of interaction is comparable to a null sum of positive and negative votes.
    Footnote 4: 'We assume that the absence of interaction is comparable to a null sum of interactions', justified by only 0.74% neutral interactions; this coding is the key difference between signed and unsigned embeddings.
  • domain assumption User voting behavior is symmetric enough to justify an undirected network.
    Section 2.1: 'we make the modeling choice to remove the directions from the graph'; empirical symmetry in Tables A2, A3. If asymmetry matters for extreme users, the embedding may be distorted.
  • ad hoc to paper Stories that only received positive votes do not polarize discussion and can be removed.
    Section 2.3: 'we removed the stories that only received positive votes. We found this step to be fundamental.' This is a post-hoc selection that shapes the bipartite network.
  • ad hoc to paper The null model assumption that all missing edges can be represented as negative ties of weight -50 captures CA's implicit treatment of non-interaction.
    Appendix A.9: 'This null model makes the same assumption as CA, that disconnected nodes are inherently dissimilar'; the weight choice is not derived from data.
  • standard math Spectral properties of the repelling Laplacian and SVD of correspondence matrix are valid.
    Equations 1-4; standard linear algebra used without proof in this paper (proved in prior work).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Negative Ties Highlight Hidden Extremes in Social Media Polarization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VR5REJ45

@misc{pith2026250105590,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Negative Ties Highlight Hidden Extremes in Social Media Polarization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VR5REJ45}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05590}
}
read the original abstract

Human interactions in the online world comprise a combination of positive and negative exchanges. These diverse interactions can be captured using signed network representations, where edges take positive or negative weights to indicate the sentiment of the interaction between individuals. Signed networks offer valuable insights into online political polarization by capturing antagonistic interactions and ideological divides on social media platforms. This study analyzes polarization on Meneame, a Spanish social media platform that facilitates engagement with news stories through comments and voting. Using a dual-method approach, Signed Hamiltonian Eigenvector Embedding for Proximity (SHEEP) for signed networks and Correspondence Analysis (CA) for unsigned networks, we investigate how including negative ties enhances the understanding of structural polarization levels across different conversation topics on the platform. While the unsigned Meneame network effectively delineates ideological communities, only by incorporating negative ties can we identify ideologically extreme users who engage in antagonistic behaviors: without them, the most extreme users remain indistinguishable from their less confrontational ideological peers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05590 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Menéame platform. Schematic representation of one of the stores in the platform. Users can upvote and downvote stories, and upvote and downvote comments within the story. Downvoting stories is possible only for registered users through the “Report” button, while upvoting stories is allowed to everyone. Only registered users can vote for comments. Comments with many positive votes appear on the platform highlighted i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparing News Outlets’ Attitudes towards the Russia-Ukraine War and Politics. The main panels (A–B) display the embeddings for each news outlet, obtained by both positive and negative ties (SHEEP) and only positive ties (CA). The smaller panels (x-I) and (x-II) compare the two embedding techniques with the ideology retrieved from Twitter for a subset of news outlets. Colors represent the Twitter ideology in all pan… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of user-to-user network for the Russia-Ukraine war topic. Both panels share the same layout, generated using the Fruchterman-Reingold force-directed algorithm, but not all the nodes appear on both networks. A random sample of 3,000 nodes is shown. Edges represent interactions: positive in blue, negative in red (only in SHEEP), and those with absolute weight smaller than 3 are filtered out. Node colors … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visualization of user-to-user network for the Broad Politics. Both panels share the same layout, generated using the Fruchterman-Reingold force-directed algorithm. A random sample of 3,000 nodes is shown. Edges represent interactions: positive in blue, negative in red …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the structural positioning derived from two embedding methods: (A) SHEEP and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    objectivity

    Regina Marchi. With facebook, blogs, and fake news, teens reject journalistic “objectivity”.Journal of communication inquiry, 36(3):246–262, 2012

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Reduc- ing controversy by connecting opposing views

    Kiran Garimella, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Aristides Gionis, and Michael Mathioudakis. Reduc- ing controversy by connecting opposing views. InProceedings of the tenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining, pages 81–90, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    The political blogosphere and the 2004 us election: divided they blog

    Lada A Adamic and Natalie Glance. The political blogosphere and the 2004 us election: divided they blog. InProceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery, pages 36–43, 2005

    2004

  4. [4]

    Political polarization on twitter

    Michael Conover, Jacob Ratkiewicz, Matthew Francisco, Bruno Gonçalves, Filippo Menczer, and Alessandro Flammini. Political polarization on twitter. InProceedings of the international aaai confer- ence on web and social media, volume 5, pages 89–96, 2011. 16

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Quantifying ideological polarization on a network using generalized Euclidean distance.Science Advances, 9(9):eabq2044, March 2023

    Marilena Hohmann, Karel Devriendt, and Michele Coscia. Quantifying ideological polarization on a network using generalized Euclidean distance.Science Advances, 9(9):eabq2044, March 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization

    Pablo Barberá. Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization. In Joshua A. Tucker and Nathaniel Persily, editors,Social Media and Democracy, SSRC Anxieties of Democracy, pages 34–55. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Growing polarization around climate change on social media.Nature Climate Change, 12(12):1114–1121, December 2022

    Max Falkenberg, Alessandro Galeazzi, Maddalena Torricelli, Niccolò Di Marco, Francesca Larosa, Madalina Sas, Amin Mekacher, Warren Pearce, Fabiana Zollo, Walter Quattrociocchi, and Andrea Baronchelli. Growing polarization around climate change on social media.Nature Climate Change, 12(12):1114–1121, December 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Macy, Brendan Cross, Zhenkun Zhou, Matteo Serafino, Alexandre Bovet, Hernán A

    James Flamino, Alessandro Galeazzi, Stuart Feldman, Michael W. Macy, Brendan Cross, Zhenkun Zhou, Matteo Serafino, Alexandre Bovet, Hernán A. Makse, and Boleslaw K. Szymanski. Political polarization of news media and influencers on Twitter in the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(6):904–916, March 2023

    work page 2016

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(42):e2207159119, 2022

    Petter Törnberg. How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(42):e2207159119, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Zachary P. Neal. A sign of the times? Weak and strong polarization in the US Congress, 1973–2016. Social networks, 60:103–112, 2020

    1973

  3. [11]

    Abramowitz and Kyle L

    Alan I. Abramowitz and Kyle L. Saunders. Is Polarization a Myth?The Journal of Politics, 70(2):542– 555, April 2008

    2008

  4. [12]

    Why Can’t We All Just Get Along? The Reality of a Polarized America.The Forum, 3(2), July 2005

    Alan Abramowitz and Kyle Saunders. Why Can’t We All Just Get Along? The Reality of a Polarized America.The Forum, 3(2), July 2005

    2005

  5. [13]

    Have Americans’ social attitudes become more polarized?American Journal of Sociology, 102(3):690–755, 1996

    Paul DiMaggio, John Evans, and Bethany Bryson. Have Americans’ social attitudes become more polarized?American Journal of Sociology, 102(3):690–755, 1996

    1996

  6. [14]

    Understanding polarization: Meanings, measures, and model evaluation

    AaronBramson, PatrickGrim, DanielJ.Singer, WilliamJ.Berger, GrahamSack, StevenFisher, Carissa Flocken, and Bennett Holman. Understanding polarization: Meanings, measures, and model evaluation. Philosophy of Science, 84(1):115–159, January 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Mass polarization: Manifestations and measurements.Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1):392–410, 2016

    Yphtach Lelkes. Mass polarization: Manifestations and measurements.Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1):392–410, 2016

    2016

  8. [16]

    Jost, Jonathan Nagler, Joshua A

    Pablo Barberá, John T. Jost, Jonathan Nagler, Joshua A. Tucker, and Richard Bonneau. Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?Psychological Science, 26(10):1531–1542, October 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Katharina Esau, Tariq Choucair, Samantha Vilkins, Sebastian F. K. Svegaard, Axel Bruns, Kate S. O’Connor-Farfan, andCarlyLubicz-Zaorski. Destructivepolarizationindigitalcommunicationcontexts: A critical review and conceptual framework.Information, Communication & Society, 0(0):1–22

  10. [18]

    Separating Polarization from Noise: Comparison and Normalization of Structural Polarization Measures, December 2021

    Ali Salloum, Ted Hsuan Yun Chen, and Mikko Kivelä. Separating Polarization from Noise: Comparison and Normalization of Structural Polarization Measures, December 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Moran Yarchi, Christian Baden, and Neta Kligler-Vilenchik. Political Polarization on the Digital Sphere: A Cross-platform, Over-time Analysis of Interactional, Positional, and Affective Polarization on Social Media.Political Communication, 38:1–42, July 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Affec- tive and interactional polarization align across countries, November 2023

    Max Falkenberg, Fabiana Zollo, Walter Quattrociocchi, Jürgen Pfeffer, and Andrea Baronchelli. Affec- tive and interactional polarization align across countries, November 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Eugene Stanley, and Walter Quattrociocchi

    Michela Del Vicario, Alessandro Bessi, Fabiana Zollo, Fabio Petroni, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, H. Eugene Stanley, and Walter Quattrociocchi. The spreading of misinformation online.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3):554–559, January 2016. 17

    2016

  14. [22]

    The echo chamber effect on social media.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9):e2023301118, March 2021

    Matteo Cinelli, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Alessandro Galeazzi, Walter Quattrociocchi, and Michele Starnini. The echo chamber effect on social media.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9):e2023301118, March 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    Hernández, Luciano da Fontoura Costa, and Yamir Moreno

    Henrique Ferraz de Arruda, Felipe Maciel Cardoso, Guilherme Ferraz de Arruda, Alexis R. Hernández, Luciano da Fontoura Costa, and Yamir Moreno. Modelling how social network algorithms can influence opinion polarization.Information Sciences, 588:265–278, April 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    everything i disagree with is# fakenews

    Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Pedro H Calais, Virgílio AF Almeida, and Wagner Meira Jr. " everything i disagree with is# fakenews": Correlating political polarization and spread of misinformation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05924, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Enelow and Melvin J

    James M. Enelow and Melvin J. Hinich.The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. CUP Archive, April 1984

    1984

  18. [26]

    Poole and Howard Rosenthal

    Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal. A Spatial Model for Legislative Roll Call Analysis.American Journal of Political Science, 29(2):357–384, 1985

    1985

  19. [27]

    Poole.Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting

    Keith T. Poole.Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. Analytical Methods for Social Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ; New York, 2005

    2005

  20. [28]

    The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data

    Joshua Clinton, Simon Jackman, and Douglas Rivers. The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data. American Political Science Review, 98(2):355–370, May 2004

    2004

  21. [29]

    Spatial voting models in circular spaces: A case study of the U.S

    Xingchen Yu and Abel Rodríguez. Spatial voting models in circular spaces: A case study of the U.S. House of Representatives.The Annals of Applied Statistics, 15(4):1897–1922, December 2021

    1922

  22. [30]

    James Moody and Peter J. Mucha. Portrait of Political Party Polarization.Network Science, 1(1):119– 121, April 2013

    2013

  23. [31]

    Fowler, Peter J

    Andrew Scott Waugh, Liuyi Pei, James H. Fowler, Peter J. Mucha, and Mason A. Porter. Party Polarization in Congress: A Network Science Approach. 2009

    2009

  24. [32]

    Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data.Political Analysis, 23(1):76–91, January 2015

    Pablo Barberá. Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data.Political Analysis, 23(1):76–91, January 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    Social Science–guided Feature Engineering: A Novel Approach to Signed Link Analysis.ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 11(1):1– 27, February 2020

    Ghazaleh Beigi, Jiliang Tang, and Huan Liu. Social Science–guided Feature Engineering: A Novel Approach to Signed Link Analysis.ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 11(1):1– 27, February 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Negative Social Ties: Prevalence and Consequences.Annual Review of Sociology, 47(Volume 47, 2021):177–196, July 2021

    Shira Offer. Negative Social Ties: Prevalence and Consequences.Annual Review of Sociology, 47(Volume 47, 2021):177–196, July 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Trust management for the semantic web

    Matthew Richardson, Rakesh Agrawal, and Pedro Domingos. Trust management for the semantic web. InThe Semantic Web-ISWC 2003: Second International Semantic Web Conference, Sanibel Island, FL, USA, October 20-23, 2003. Proceedings 2, pages 351–368. Springer, 2003

    2003

  28. [36]

    Community structure in largenetworks: Naturalclustersizesandtheabsenceoflargewell-definedclusters.Internet Mathematics, 6(1):29–123, 2009

    Jure Leskovec, Kevin J Lang, Anirban Dasgupta, and Michael W Mahoney. Community structure in largenetworks: Naturalclustersizesandtheabsenceoflargewell-definedclusters.Internet Mathematics, 6(1):29–123, 2009

    2009

  29. [37]

    Predicting positive and negative links in online socialnetworks

    Jure Leskovec, Daniel Huttenlocher, and Jon Kleinberg. Predicting positive and negative links in online socialnetworks. InProceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, pages641–650, Raleigh North Carolina USA, April 2010. ACM

    2010

  30. [38]

    Debagreement: A comment-reply dataset for (dis) agreement detection in online debates

    John Pougué-Biyong, Valentina Semenova, Alexandre Matton, Rachel Han, Aerin Kim, Renaud Lam- biotte, and Doyne Farmer. Debagreement: A comment-reply dataset for (dis) agreement detection in online debates. InThirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Data...

    2021

  31. [39]

    Learning stance embed- dings from signed social graphs

    John Pougué-Biyong, Akshay Gupta, Aria Haghighi, and Ahmed El-Kishky. Learning stance embed- dings from signed social graphs. InProceedings of the Sixteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pages 177–185, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Why it is important to consider negative ties when studying polarized debates: A signed network analysis of a dutch cultural controversy on twitter.PloS one, 16(8):e0256696, 2021

    Anna Keuchenius, Petter Törnberg, and Justus Uitermark. Why it is important to consider negative ties when studying polarized debates: A signed network analysis of a dutch cultural controversy on twitter.PloS one, 16(8):e0256696, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Onthenotionofbalanceofasignedgraph.Michigan Mathematical Journal, 2(2):143–146, 1953

    FrankHarary. Onthenotionofbalanceofasignedgraph.Michigan Mathematical Journal, 2(2):143–146, 1953

    1953

  34. [42]

    Structural balance: a generalization of heider’s theory.Psycho- logical review, 63(5):277, 1956

    Dorwin Cartwright and Frank Harary. Structural balance: a generalization of heider’s theory.Psycho- logical review, 63(5):277, 1956

    1956

  35. [43]

    Attitudes and cognitive organization.The Journal of psychology, 21(1):107–112, 1946

    Fritz Heider. Attitudes and cognitive organization.The Journal of psychology, 21(1):107–112, 1946

    1946

  36. [44]

    Clustering and structural balance in graphs.Human relations, 20(2):181–187, 1967

    James A Davis. Clustering and structural balance in graphs.Human relations, 20(2):181–187, 1967

    1967

  37. [45]

    Balance and frustration in signed networks.Journal of Complex Networks, 7(2):163–189, 2019

    Samin Aref and Mark C Wilson. Balance and frustration in signed networks.Journal of Complex Networks, 7(2):163–189, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    Partitioning signed social networks.Social Networks, 31(1):1–11, 2009

    Patrick Doreian and Andrej Mrvar. Partitioning signed social networks.Social Networks, 31(1):1–11, 2009

    2009

  39. [47]

    Community detection in networks with positive and negative links.Physical Review E, 80(3):036115, 2009

    Vincent A Traag and Jeroen Bruggeman. Community detection in networks with positive and negative links.Physical Review E, 80(3):036115, 2009

    2009

  40. [48]

    Cantwell, and M

    Alec Kirkley, George T. Cantwell, and M. E. J. Newman. Balance in signed networks.Physical Review E, 99(1), January 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    Pole: Polarized embedding for signed networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.09899, 2021

    Zexi Huang, Arlei Silva, and Ambuj Singh. Pole: Polarized embedding for signed networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.09899, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Samin Aref and Zachary P. Neal. Identifying hidden coalitions in the US House of Representatives by optimally partitioning signed networks based on generalized balance. 11(1):19939

  43. [51]

    Sheep, a signed hamiltonian eigenvector embedding for proximity.Communications Physics, 7(1):8, 2024

    Shazia’Ayn Babul and Renaud Lambiotte. Sheep, a signed hamiltonian eigenvector embedding for proximity.Communications Physics, 7(1):8, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Detecting coalitions by optimally partitioning signed networks of political collaboration

    Samin Aref and Zachary Neal. Detecting coalitions by optimally partitioning signed networks of political collaboration. 10(1):1506

  45. [53]

    An exploratory study about issue and attribute salience within the system of news promotion, menéame

    Jan Alyne Barbosa e Silva. An exploratory study about issue and attribute salience within the system of news promotion, menéame. 2008

    2008

  46. [54]

    Comparative analysis of articulated and behavioural social networks in a social news sharing website.New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 17(3):243–266, 2011

    Andreas Kaltenbrunner, Gustavo Gonzalez, Ricard Ruiz De Querol, and Yana Volkovich. Comparative analysis of articulated and behavioural social networks in a social news sharing website.New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 17(3):243–266, 2011

    2011

  47. [55]

    Kappen, Nelly Litvak, and Andreas Kaltenbrunner

    Vicenç Gómez, Hilbert J. Kappen, Nelly Litvak, and Andreas Kaltenbrunner. A likelihood-based frame- work for the analysis of discussion threads.World Wide Web, 16(5):645–675, November 2013

    2013

  48. [56]

    To thread or not to thread: The impact of conversation threading on online discussion

    Pablo Aragón, Vicenç Gómez, and Andreaks Kaltenbrunner. To thread or not to thread: The impact of conversation threading on online discussion. InProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and social media, volume 11, pages 12–21, 2017

    2017

  49. [57]

    Community Detection in Signed Networks: The Role of Negative ties in Different Scales.Scientific Reports, 5(1):14339, September 2015

    Pouya Esmailian and Mahdi Jalili. Community Detection in Signed Networks: The Role of Negative ties in Different Scales.Scientific Reports, 5(1):14339, September 2015

    2015

  50. [58]

    Polarization and multiscale structural balance in signed networks.Communications Physics, 6(1):1–15, December 2023

    Szymon Talaga, Massimo Stella, Trevor James Swanson, and Andreia Sofia Teixeira. Polarization and multiscale structural balance in signed networks.Communications Physics, 6(1):1–15, December 2023. 19

    2023

  51. [59]

    chapman and hall/crc, 2017

    Michael Greenacre.Correspondence analysis in practice. chapman and hall/crc, 2017

    2017

  52. [60]

    Peralta, Pedro Ramaciotti, János Kertész, and Gerardo Iñiguez

    Antonio F. Peralta, Pedro Ramaciotti, János Kertész, and Gerardo Iñiguez. Multidimensional political polarization in online social networks.Phys. Rev. Res., 6:013170, Feb 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Blei and John D

    David M. Blei and John D. Lafferty. Topic Models. InText Mining. Chapman and Hall/CRC

  54. [62]

    Bertopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based tf-idf procedure.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05794, 2022

    Maarten Grootendorst. Bertopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based tf-idf procedure.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05794, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Peixoto, and Eduardo G

    Martin Gerlach, Tiago P. Peixoto, and Eduardo G. Altmann. A network approach to topic models. 4(7):eaaq1360

  56. [64]

    BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding, May 2019

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding, May 2019

    2019

  57. [65]

    Tiago P. Peixoto. Hierarchical block structures and high-resolution model selection in large networks. Phys. Rev. X, 4:011047, March 2014

    2014

  58. [66]

    Guodong Shi, Claudio Altafini, and John S. Baras. Dynamics over Signed Networks.SIAM Review, 61(2):229–257, January 2019

    2019

  59. [67]

    H. O. Hirschfeld. A connection between correlation and contingency.Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31(4):520–524, 1935

    1935

  60. [68]

    J.P.BenzécriandL.Bellier.L’analyse des données: Benzécri, J.-P. et al. L’analyse des correspondances. L’analyse des données: leçons sur l’analyse factorielle et la reconnaissance des formes, et travaux du Laboratoire de statistique de l’Université de Paris VI. Dunod, 1973

    1973

  61. [69]

    Greenacre.Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis

    M.J. Greenacre.Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis. Academic Press, 1984

    1984

  62. [71]

    Harmon, Joshua Roesslein, and Other Contributors. Tweepy. Zenodo, April 2023

    2023

  63. [72]

    Thomas M. J. Fruchterman and Edward M. Reingold. Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Software: Practice and Experience, 21(11):1129–1164, 1991

    1991

  64. [73]

    Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT- Networks

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT- Networks

  65. [74]

    Somosnlp-hackathon-2022/paraphrase-spanish-distilroberta·Hugging Face

    2022

  66. [75]

    McInnes, J

    L. McInnes, J. Healy, and J. Melville. UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction.ArXiv e-prints, February 2018

    2018

  67. [76]

    hdbscan: Hierarchical density based clustering.The Journal of Open Source Software, 2(11), March 2017

    Leland McInnes, John Healy, and Steve Astels. hdbscan: Hierarchical density based clustering.The Journal of Open Source Software, 2(11), March 2017

    2017

  68. [77]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duch- esnay. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python.Journal of Machine Learnin...

    2011

  69. [78]

    O’Reilly Media Inc., 2009

    Steven Bird, Edward Loper, and Ewan Klein.Natural Language Processing with Python. O’Reilly Media Inc., 2009

    2009

  70. [79]

    spaCy: Industrial-strength Natural Language Processing in Python

    Matthew Honnibal, Ines Montani, Sofie Van Landeghem, and Adriane Boyd. spaCy: Industrial-strength Natural Language Processing in Python. 2020

    2020

  71. [80]

    A dendrite method for cluster analysis.Communications in Statistics-theory and Methods, 3(1):1–27, 1974

    Tadeusz Caliński and Jerzy Harabasz. A dendrite method for cluster analysis.Communications in Statistics-theory and Methods, 3(1):1–27, 1974. 20 A Appendix A.1 Reciprocal voting analysis We analyzed mutual voting behavior between users for the topics Russia and Politics. For e...

    1974

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.