Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 46 references

A More Advanced Group Polarization Measurement Approach Based on LLM-Based Agents and Graphs

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that group polarization on social media is best measured as a graph of intergroup sentiments, built by LLM agents, and summarized by a single Community Opposition Index.

desk verdict Strong stance detection results wrapped around an undefined polarization metric; the paper is a solid agent-system contribution but not yet a polarization measure. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12196 v2 pith:MEFBOUOB submitted 2024-11-19 cs.CY cs.AI

Zixin Liu , Ji Zhang , Yiran Ding This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords multi-agentsystemgrouppolarizationlargelanguagemodelscommunitysentimentnetworkoppositionindexstancedetectionanalysissocialmedia
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 proposes a new way to measure group polarization on social media: instead of counting volumes, classifying sentiments, or analyzing social networks in isolation, it builds a directed graph called the Community Sentiment Network (CSN), where nodes are stance-based subgroups and edges carry sentiment scores between them. The paper's central claim is that this graph, constructed by a multi-agent system of large language models, supports a quantitative metric, the Community Opposition Index (COI), that captures both internal cohesion within subgroups and hostility between them, making polarization measurement more usable, accurate, and interpretable than prior approaches. To support the claim, the paper tests the agent pipeline on zero-shot stance detection across three benchmark datasets and reports substantial gains over existing methods, especially on the VAST dataset. A sympathetic reader would care because the approach promises a practical, explainable tool for tracking how online discussion fragments over time.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Community Sentiment Network (CSN), a directed cyclic graph with sentiment-labeled edges, and the multi-agent LLM pipeline that builds it. The pipeline runs in three stages: Background Mining (a Domain Specialist and Subgroup Exploration Expert infer the event context and candidate subgroups), Semantic Analysis (Social Media Veteran, Linguistic Expert, and Sentiment Analysis Expert decode slang, sarcasm, and rhetoric), and Polarization Assessment (a Polarization Assessor outputs per-comment triplets of stance, sentiment score, and target subgroup). The triplets are aggregated into an adjacency matrix with like-weighted averaging, and stance labels missing from incomplete triplets are imputed stochastically from observed frequencies. From this matrix, the Community Opposition Index (COI) computes a single polarization number that combines subgroup size, internal cohesion, and intergroup hostility.

What would settle it

Run the full pipeline on a comment corpus where an independent expert panel has ranked subsets by polarization; if the COI ordering diverges from the panel ordering, the index does not capture what humans mean by group polarization. A second check is to rerun the stochastic imputation of missing stances with different random seeds and see whether the resulting COI values are stable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that group polarization can be represented as a temporal graph of subgroup sentiments and quantified by a single index. The Community Sentiment Network (CSN) generalizes the two-party 'Sentiment Thermometer' to any number of subgroups: vertices are opinion subgroups, directed edges carry average sentiment (positive or negative) from one subgroup toward another, and self-loops capture internal cohesion. The Community Opposition Index (COI) sums, over all subgroups, the size-weighted product of internal cohesion and negative (oppositional) sentiment directed at other subgroups, formally $\sum_i \frac{n_i}{N} t_i \sum_j (-e_{ij}) \mathbf{1}_{e_{ij} \le 0}$. The paper validates the construction pipeline, not the index directly, by showing that its LLM-based multi-agent system achieves strong zero-shot stance detection accuracy on SEM16, P-Stance, and VAST, surpassing prior baselines on several targets.

Load-bearing premise

The claim collapses if correct per-comment stance, target, and sentiment extraction does not guarantee that the aggregated Community Opposition Index is a valid measure of group polarization, since the paper validates only the extraction stage, not the index itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If COI is a valid measure, polarization can be tracked over time by computing it on successive time slices of a comment stream, giving a temporal curve of group fragmentation.
  • The graph representation exposes which pairs of subgroups drive polarization, since the CSN keeps the edge-level hostility scores that COI aggregates.
  • The multi-agent design can be adapted to new topics without retraining, since the agents operate zero-shot from background mining.
  • The method downgrades the importance of volume: COI is relative and size-weighted, so large neutral crowds do not mask small hostile factions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's validation, a natural next step is to test whether COI ordering matches expert ratings or independent polarization surveys on the same comment corpus, something the paper does not do.
  • The internal cohesion term $t_i$ is stated but its computation is not specified in the presented equations, so the index's behavior depends on a definition the paper leaves open.
  • Because Algorithm 2 imputes missing personal stances by sampling from observed frequencies, the index has an inherent stochastic component; a robustness check would report variance across seeds.
  • The same graph could support derivative metrics beyond COI, such as detecting which subgroups are most isolated or most adversarial over time.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a group polarization measurement approach built on a multi-agent LLM system. It introduces a Community Sentiment Network (CSN) to represent subgroups and inter-subgroup sentiments, and a Community Opposition Index (COI) as a scalar metric. The system's components are evaluated only through zero-shot stance detection on SEM16, P-Stance, and VAST, where it reports strong results. The central claim is that this approach provides a usable, accurate, and interpretable polarization measurement.

Significance. If the COI were well-defined and validated, the paper would offer a practical pipeline for large-scale social media polarization analysis, and the strong stance detection results suggest the extraction component is competitive. However, the current manuscript's significance is severely limited: the COI is not computable as written because internal cohesion t_i is undefined, and no experiment tests the metric against any external polarization criterion. The conceptual idea of combining internal cohesion and inter-group hostility in a graph index is plausible, but the paper does not yet provide evidence that the index behaves as claimed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eqs. (1)-(3)] The Community Opposition Index is not a well-defined function of the described inputs because the internal cohesion term t_i is never defined or operationalized. The text states only that t_i represents 'the internal cohesion of the subgroup i' (Eq. 2), and no equation, algorithm, or data source for t_i appears anywhere in the manuscript. Since the final COI in Eq. (3) is a weighted sum over t_i, readers cannot compute the index from the CSN or any described dataset. This is load-bearing: the abstract and introduction claim that the approach provides accurate and interpretable polarization measurement, and COI is the metric that operationalizes that claim.
  2. [Section 4] The empirical evaluation does not validate the polarization measurement claim. The experiments test zero-shot stance detection on SEM16, P-Stance, and VAST, which evaluate per-comment classification against gold labels. No experiment computes COI, compares COI to any ground-truth polarization measure, or tests whether COI distinguishes polarized from non-polarized discussions. The paper's own statement that 'there is no established benchmark' (Section 4) explains the choice but does not justify it; stance detection accuracy is a proxy for the extraction component, not evidence about the validity of the aggregation metric.
  3. [Algorithm 2, lines 19-32] The CSN construction algorithm is non-reproducible. Incomplete triplets are completed by sampling a subgroup from the observed stance frequencies (lines 23-26), but the sampling has no random seed and no repeated averaging is performed. Two runs on identical input data can therefore produce different adjMatrix values and different COI outputs. A measurement method should be deterministic; as written, the method cannot yield a stable, comparable index. Additionally, the hardcoded 10x10 matrix dimensions arbitrarily assume at most 10 subgroups, which is not justified.
  4. [Section 4.2 and Table 3] The comparison with baselines is confounded by the choice of base model. The authors state that GPT-3.5 Turbo is used for the agents in the Background Mining and Semantic Analysis stages, while GPT-4 is employed as the Polarization Assessor (Section 4.2). Several baselines, such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-3.5+COT, use GPT-3.5 alone. The reported improvements over these baselines may therefore reflect the stronger base model rather than the multi-agent architecture. To support the architecture claim, the authors should compare systems using the same underlying LLM, or ablate the agent composition with a fixed base model.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains many typographical and formatting errors, including 'F or' in the Section 3.2 heading, 'Background' in Figure 2, 'V ariable' in Table 1, '63,4' in Table 3, and concatenated words in the introduction (e.g., 'Withthedevelopmentofinternettechnology'). A thorough proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Section 3.2] The threshold for uncertainComments and the HumanExpertHelp procedure are not specified; a reader cannot determine when human intervention occurs or how reproducible the results are.
  3. [Algorithm 1] The variable sg is populated in the first loop but is not clearly connected to the initialization of the agents; the role of SocialMediaVeteran(sg, bg) could be clarified.
  4. [Section 3.1] The relationship between the 'directed cyclic graph' description and the matrix construction in Algorithm 2 is not explicit, particularly regarding how self-loops are formed.
  5. [Table 3] The 'P-Stance' column header is run together ('TrumpBiden Sanders') and should be separated for readability.
  6. [Reproducibility] No code, prompts, or detailed agent instructions are provided, making it impossible to reproduce the stance detection results or the CSN construction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: COI is a proposed definitional metric, not a fitted prediction; stance-detection benchmarks are external and validate the agent pipeline only.

full rationale

The paper does not contain a circular derivation chain in the sense of the review criteria. COI (Eq. 3) is an explicitly proposed construction: COI = sum_i (n_i/N) * t_i * sum_j (-e_ij) * 1_{e_ij <= 0}. It is not derived from data, fitted to a target, or shown to equal another quantity by construction. The only empirical support is zero-shot stance detection on SEM16, P-Stance, and VAST, which are external benchmarks; those results are not used to fit COI or any parameter of Eq. 3. The paper itself acknowledges that no polarization benchmark exists: 'Since there is no established benchmark in the field of group polarization research, we have chosen to test the system using stance detection tasks, which share a similar nature' (Section 4). That is a validation gap, not circularity: stance detection measures classification against gold labels, whereas COI is never validated against any external criterion. The internal cohesion t_i is displayed symbolically in Eqs. (2)-(3) but never defined or operationalized, so COI is not computable as written; however, an undefined quantity is an incompleteness defect, not a reduction of a prediction to its inputs. Algorithm 2's stochastic imputation of missing stances is non-reproducible, but again this is a reproducibility/completeness issue rather than a circular one. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The central limitation is that the paper claims usefulness and accuracy for a metric it does not actually test; that claim is unsupported, but it is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper contributes a graph representation and a metric, but the metric depends on an undefined internal cohesion term, and the validity of the central claim rests on an unproven proxy. No external benchmark for COI is provided; the only empirical test is the stance detection component.

free parameters (3)
  • internal cohesion t_i
    Used multiplicatively in COI (Eqs. 2 and 3) but never defined or computed; without a value the polarization score cannot be calculated.
  • uncertainComments threshold
    Algorithm 1 calls for human help once the number of uncertain comments reaches a threshold, but the threshold value and triggering rule are not specified.
  • fixed matrix dimension = 10
    Algorithm 2 hardcodes 10x10 matrices; if a topic yields more than 10 subgroups the representation silently truncates.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Stance detection performance is a valid proxy for group polarization measurement quality
    Section 4 states there is no polarization benchmark, so the system is tested on stance detection tasks, which 'share a similar nature'; no evidence establishes this transfer.
  • domain assumption Polarization is determined by intergroup hostility and within-group cohesion
    Invoked in Section 3.3 based on references [18,19,26,41]; COI operationalizes this view without independent justification.
  • domain assumption LLM agents' sentiment scores are commensurable across comments and subgroups and can be averaged
    Algorithm 2 averages weighted sentiment scores, but no calibration of the LLM score scale is described.
  • ad hoc to paper At most 10 subgroups per topic
    Algorithm 2 initializes 10x10 matrices with no explanation.
  • ad hoc to paper Incomplete stances can be imputed by sampling from observed stance frequencies
    Algorithm 2 lines 20-32; this injects stochasticity and assumes missing stances follow the same distribution as known ones.
invented entities (2)
  • Community Sentiment Network (CSN)
    purpose: Represents subgroups and sentiment between and within them as a directed graph
    Defined in Section 3.1; no external benchmark, data, or independent measurement confirms it captures real polarization.
  • Community Opposition Index (COI)
    purpose: Single metric quantifying group polarization from the CSN
    Defined in Section 3.3; depends on undefined t_i and is never validated against known polarization outcomes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A More Advanced Group Polarization Measurement Approach Based on LLM-Based Agents and Graphs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MEFBOUOB

@misc{pith2026241112196,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A More Advanced Group Polarization Measurement Approach Based on LLM-Based Agents and Graphs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MEFBOUOB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12196}
}
read the original abstract

Group polarization is an important research direction in social media content analysis, attracting many researchers to explore this field. Therefore, how to effectively measure group polarization has become a critical topic. Measuring group polarization on social media presents several challenges that have not yet been addressed by existing solutions. First, social media group polarization measurement involves processing vast amounts of text, which poses a significant challenge for information extraction. Second, social media texts often contain hard-to-understand content, including sarcasm, memes, and internet slang. Additionally, group polarization research focuses on holistic analysis, while texts is typically fragmented. To address these challenges, we designed a solution based on a multi-agent system and used a graph-structured Community Sentiment Network (CSN) to represent polarization states. Furthermore, we developed a metric called Community Opposition Index (COI) based on the CSN to quantify polarization. Finally, we tested our multi-agent system through a zero-shot stance detection task and achieved outstanding results. In summary, the proposed approach has significant value in terms of usability, accuracy, and interpretability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12196 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of a CSN generated by Graphviz. This CSN was generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The structure of multi-agent system for CSN construction, containing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03640 (2020) 13, 14

    Allaway, E., McKeown, K.: Zero-shot stance detection: A dataset and model using generalized topic representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03640 (2020) 13, 14

    arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.06603 (2021)

    Allaway, E., Srikanth, M., McKeown, K.: Adversarial learning for zero-shot stance detection on social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.06603 (2021). 13, 14

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05464 (2016) 12

    Augenstein, I., Rocktäschel, T., Vlachos, A., Bontcheva, K.: Stance detection with bidirectional conditional encoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05464 (2016) 12

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    IEEE Access8, 47177–47187 (2020) 2, 3

    Belcastro, L., Cantini, R., Marozzo, F., Talia, D., Trunfio, P.: Learning political polarization on social media using neural networks. IEEE Access8, 47177–47187 (2020) 2, 3

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    In: 2019 International Conference on Engineering and Emerging Technologies (ICEET), pp

    Bilal, M., Gani, A., Marjani, M., Malik, N.: Predicting Elections: Social Media Data and Techniques. In: 2019 International Conference on Engineering and Emerging Technologies (ICEET), pp. 1-6. Springer, 2019.https://doi.org/10.1109/CEET1. 2019.8711854 2

    work page arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis91, 181–196 (2007)

    Bomsdorf, E., Otto, C.: A new approach to the measurement of polarization for grouped data. AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis91, 181–196 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    National Bureau of Economic Research, (2020) 2, 3, 10

    Boxell,L.,Conway,J.,Druckman,J.N.,Gentzkow,M.:Affectivepolarizationdidnot increase during the coronavirus pandemic. National Bureau of Economic Research, (2020) 2, 3, 10

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    In: 2015 Fif- teenth International Conference on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions (ICTer), pp

    Bravo, R.B., Del Valle, M.E., Gavidia, À.R.: A multilayered analysis of polarization and leaderships in the Catalan Parliamentarians’ Twitter Network. In: 2015 Fif- teenth International Conference on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions (ICTer), pp. 200–206. IEEE (2015).https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTER.2015.7377689 4

    work page arXiv 2015

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165 (2020) 4

    Brown, T.B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakan- tan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Agarwal, S., Herbert-Voss, A., Krueger, G., Henighan, T., Child, R., Ramesh, A., Ziegler, D.M., Wu, J., Winter, C., Hesse, C., Chen, M., Sigler, E., L...

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol

    Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Gonçalves, B., Menczer, F., Flammini, A.: Political polarization on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 89–96 (2011).https://doi. org/10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14126 4

    2011 doi

  3. [11]

    DIGITAL 2024: GLOBAL OVERVIEW REPORT,https://datareportal.com/ global-digital-overview, last accessed 2024/09/14 1

    2024

  4. [12]

    Policy & Internet7(1), 46–79 (2015) 4

    Garcia, D., Abisheva, A., Schweighofer, S., Serdült, U., Schweitzer, F.: Ideological and temporal components of network polarization in online political participatory media. Policy & Internet7(1), 46–79 (2015) 4

    2015

  5. [13]

    In: Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on So- cial Network Mining and Analysis, article no

    Gaurav, M., Srivastava, A., Kumar, A., Miller, S.: Leveraging candidate popularity on Twitter to predict election outcome. In: Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on So- cial Network Mining and Analysis, article no. 7, pp. 1-8. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2013)....

    2013

  6. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol

    Guerra, P., Meira Jr, W., Cardie, C., Kleinberg, R.: A measure of polarization on social media networks based on community boundaries. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 215–224 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm...

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    Science Communication42(5), 679–697 (2020) 2, 3 16 Zixin Liu et al

    Hart, P.S., Chinn, S., Soroka, S.: Politicization and polarization in COVID-19 news coverage. Science Communication42(5), 679–697 (2020) 2, 3 16 Zixin Liu et al

    2020

  8. [16]

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(6), 1141–1151 (1986) 2

    Isenberg, D.J.: Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(6), 1141–1151 (1986) 2

    1986

  9. [17]

    Annual Review of Political Science 22(1), 129–146 (2019) 2, 3, 10

    Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., Westwood, S.J.: The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science 22(1), 129–146 (2019) 2, 3, 10

    2019

  10. [18]

    Public Opinion Quarterly76(3), 405–431 (2012) 3, 5, 10

    Iyengar, S., Sood, G., Lelkes, Y.: Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly76(3), 405–431 (2012) 3, 5, 10

    2012

  11. [19]

    American Journal of Political Science59(3), 690–707 (2015) 10

    Iyengar, S., Westwood, S.J.: Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science59(3), 690–707 (2015) 10

    2015

  12. [20]

    Asian Journal of Commu- nication 29(3), 252—273 (2018) 2

    Jaidka, K., Ahmed, S., Skoric, M., Hilbert, M.: Predicting elections from social media: a three-country, three-method comparative study. Asian Journal of Commu- nication 29(3), 252—273 (2018) 2

    2018

  13. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol

    Jiang, J., Ren, X., Ferrara, E.: Retweet-BERT: Political leaning detection using language features and information diffusion on social networks. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 17, pp. 459–469 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1609/i...

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 2(CSCW), 1–23 (2018)

    Jiang, S., Wilson, C.: Linguistic signals under misinformation and fact-checking: Evidence from user comments on social media. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 2(CSCW), 1–23 (2018). 2, 3

    2018

  15. [23]

    Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology8(4, Pt

    Knox, R.E., Inkster, J.A.: Postdecision dissonance at post time. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology8(4, Pt. 1), 319 (1968)

    1968

  16. [24]

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 3(1), 75–84 (1967)

    Kogan, N., Wallach, M.A.: Risky-shift phenomenon in small decision-making groups: A test of the information-exchange hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 3(1), 75–84 (1967)

    1967

  17. [25]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10467 (2023) 13, 14

    Lan, X., Gao, C., Jin, D., et al.: Stance detection with collaborative role-infused LLM-based agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10467 (2023) 13, 14

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    The Journal of Politics 79(2), 485–501 (2017) 2, 3, 10

    Lelkes, Y., Westwood, S.J.: The limits of partisan prejudice. The Journal of Politics 79(2), 485–501 (2017) 2, 3, 10

    2017

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp

    Li, A., Liang, B., Zhao, J., Zhang, B., Yang, M., Xu, R.: Stance detection on social media with background knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 15703–15717 (2023). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.972 12

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, pp

    Liang, B., Chen, Z., Gui, L., He, Y., Yang, M., Xu, R.: Zero-shot stance detection via contrastive learning. In: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, pp. 2738–2747 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3485447.3511994 12, 14

    2022

  21. [29]

    In: Findings of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pp

    Liu, R., Lin, Z., Tan, Y., et al.: Enhancing zero-shot and few-shot stance detection with commonsense knowledge graph. In: Findings of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pp. 3152–3157 (2021).https://doi.org/ 10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.278 13, 14

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pp

    Li, Y., Sosea, T., Sawant, A., Nair, A.J., Inkpen, D., Caragea, C.: P-stance: A large dataset for stance detection in political domain. In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pp. 2355–2365 (2021).https: //doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.findin...

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Social Science Computer Review (2024)

    Lu, H.C., Lee, H.W.: Agents of Discord: Modeling the Impact of Political Bots on Opinion Polarization in Social Networks. Social Science Computer Review (2024). https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393241270382 4

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 169, 113287 (2023) 2, 4 A More Advanced Group Polarization Measurement Scheme 17

    Maia, H.P., Ferreira, S.C., Martins, M.L.: Controversy-seeking fuels rumor-telling activity in polarized opinion networks. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 169, 113287 (2023) 2, 4 A More Advanced Group Polarization Measurement Scheme 17

    2023

  25. [33]

    Government Information Quarterly34(3), 533–544 (2017) 4

    Medaglia, R., Zhu, D.: Public deliberation on government-managed social media: A study on Weibo users in China. Government Information Quarterly34(3), 533–544 (2017) 4

    2017

  26. [34]

    In: Proceedings of the 10th Interna- tional Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016), pp

    Mohammad, S., Kiritchenko, S., Sobhani, P., Zhu, X., Cherry, C.: SemEval- 2016 Task 6: Detecting stance in tweets. In: Proceedings of the 10th Interna- tional Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (SemEval-2016), pp. 31–41 (2016).https: //doi.org/10.18653/v1/S16-1003 12

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    Everything I disagree with is #FakeNews

    Ribeiro, M.H., Calais, P.H., Almeida, V.A., Meira Jr, W.: "Everything I disagree with is #FakeNews": Correlating political polarization and spread of misinforma- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05924 (2017). 2, 3

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(50), e2102141118 (2021)

    Santos, F.P., Lelkes, Y., Levin, S.A.: Link recommendation algorithms and dy- namics of polarization in online social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(50), e2102141118 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.2102141118 4

    2021

  29. [37]

    Stoner, J.A.: A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk (Doc- toral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (1961) 2

    1961

  30. [38]

    In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol

    Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T., Sandner, P., Welpe, I.: Predicting elections with Twit- ter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 178–185 (2010). https://doi.org/10.16...

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    In: 2020 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), pp

    Tyagi, A., Uyheng, J., Carley, K.M.: Affective Polarization in Online Climate Change Discourse on Twitter. In: 2020 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), pp. 443–447. IEEE, The Hague (2020).https://doi.org/10.1109/ASONAM...

    2020

  32. [40]

    In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA), pp

    Vicario, M.D., Gaito, S., Quattrociocchi, W., Zignani, M., Zollo, F.: News Con- sumption during the Italian Referendum: A Cross-Platform Analysis on Facebook and Twitter. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA), pp. 648–657. IEEE, T...

    2017

  33. [41]

    Information Systems Journal33(3), 640–668 (2023) 3, 10

    Wakefield, R.L., Wakefield, K.: The antecedents and consequences of intergroup affective polarization on social media. Information Systems Journal33(3), 640–668 (2023) 3, 10

    2023

  34. [42]

    In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pp

    Xiao, Z., Song, W., Xu, H., Ren, Z., Sun, Y.: TIMME: Twitter ideology-detection via multi-task multi-relational embedding. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pp. 2258–2268 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/339448...

    2020

  35. [43]

    Political Communication38(1-2), 98–139 (2021) 10

    Yarchi, M., Baden, C., Kligler-Vilenchik, N.: Political polarization on the digital sphere:Across-platform,over-timeanalysisofinteractional,positional,andaffective polarization on social media. Political Communication38(1-2), 98–139 (2021) 10

    2021

  36. [44]

    Zhang, B., Ding, D., Jing, L.: How would stance detection techniques evolve after the launch of ChatGPT? arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14548 (2022) 4, 14

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03087 (2023) 14

    Zhang, B., Fu, X., Ding, D., Huang, H., Li, Y., Jing, L.: Investigating chain- of-thought with ChatGPT for stance detection on social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03087 (2023) 14

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    793–803 (2019).https://doi.org/10

    Zhang, C., Song, D., Huang, C., Swami, A., Chawla, N.V.: Heterogeneous graph neuralnetwork.In:Proceedingsofthe25thACMSIGKDDInternationalConference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pp. 793–803 (2019).https://doi.org/10. 1145/3292500.3330961 4

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.