Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:06:37.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling reciprocity in social interactions with probabilistic latent space models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2011

ROXANA GIRJU  and
MICHAEL J. PAUL
ROXANA GIRJU
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA emails: girju@illinois.edu, mjpaul2@illinois.edu
MICHAEL J. PAUL
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA emails: girju@illinois.edu, mjpaul2@illinois.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reciprocity is a pervasive concept that plays an important role in governing people's behavior, judgments, and thus their social interactions. In this paper we present an analysis of the concept of reciprocity as expressed in English and a way to model it. At a larger structural level the reciprocity model will induce representations and clusters of relations between interpersonal verbs. In particular, we introduce an algorithm that semi-automatically discovers patterns encoding reciprocity based on a set of simple yet effective pronoun templates. Using the most frequently occurring patterns we queried the web and extracted 13,443 reciprocal instances, which represent a broad-coverage resource. Unsupervised clustering procedures are performed to generate meaningful semantic clusters of reciprocal instances. We also present several extensions (along with observations) to these models that incorporate meta-attributes like the verbs' affective value, identify gender differences between participants, consider the textual context of the instances, and automatically discover verbs with certain presuppositions. The pattern discovery procedure yields an accuracy of 97 per cent, while the clustering procedures – clustering with pairwise membership and clustering with transitions – indicate accuracies of 91 per cent and 64 per cent, respectively. Our affective value clustering can predict an unknown verb's affective value (positive, negative, or neutral) with 51 per cent accuracy, while it can discriminate between positive and negative values with 68 per cent accuracy. The presupposition discovery procedure yields an accuracy of 97 per cent.

Type
Papers
Information
Natural Language Engineering , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 1 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Airoldi, E. M., Blei, D. M., Fienberg, S. E., and Xing, E. P. 2008. Mixed membership stochastic blockmodels. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9: 1981–2014.Google ScholarPubMed
Andrieu, C., de Freitas, N., Doucet, A., and Jordan, M. 2003. An Introduction to MCMC for Machine Learning.Google Scholar
Asher, N., and Lascarides, A. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, C., Fillmore, Ch., and Lowe, J. 1998. The Berkeley FrameNet project. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL 1998), Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 86–90. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Barwise, J., and Perry, J. 1985. Semantic innocence and uncompromising situations. In Martinich, A. P. (ed.), The Philosophy of Language, pp. 401–413. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Becker, L. (ed.) 1990. Reciprocity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Blei, D., Ng, A., and Jordan, M. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3: 993–1022.Google Scholar
Calvin, W., and Bickerton, D. 2000. Lingua ex Machina. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, N., and Jurafsky, D. 2008. Jointly combining implicit constraints improves temporal ordering. In Proceedings of the Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processi ng Conference (EMNLP), pp. 698–706.Google Scholar
Chambers, N., and Jurafsky, D. 2009. Unsupervised learning of narrative schemas and their participants. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-IJCNLP).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, N., Wang, S., and Jurafsky, D. 2007. Classifying temporal relations between events. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, J., and Blei, D. 2009. Relational topic models for document networks. In AISTATS '09: Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics.Google Scholar
Chang, J., Boyd-Graber, J., Gerrish, S., Wang, C., and Blei, D. 2009. Reading tea leaves: how humans interpret topic models. In Neural Information Processing Systems.Google Scholar
Chklovski, T., and Pantel, P. 2004. Verbocean: mining the web for fine-grained semantic verb relations. In Proceedings of the Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) Conference.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20 (1): 37–46.Google Scholar
Connor, R. J., and Mosimann, J. E. 1969, March. Concepts of independence for proportions with a generalization of the dirichlet distribution. Journal of the American Statistical Association 64 (325): 194–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, M., Kazanawa, M., Kim, Y., Mchombo, S., and Peters, S. 1998. Reciprocal expressions and the concept of reciprocity. Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 159–210.Google Scholar
Davidov, D., and Rappoport, A. 2008. Unsupervised discovery of generic relationships using pattern clusters and its evaluation by automaticaly generated sat analogy questions. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL).Google Scholar
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., and Rdin, D. B. 1977. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 39: 1–38.Google Scholar
De Waal, F. 2001. Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior can Tell Us About Human Social Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dhillon, I. S., Guan, Y., and Kulis, B. 2007. Weighted graph cuts without eigenvectors a multilevel approach. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 29 (11): 1944–1957.Google Scholar
Esuli, A., and Sebastiani, F. 2007. Pageranking wordnet synsets: an application to opinion mining. In Proceedings of ACL-07, the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 424–431.Google Scholar
Etzioni, O., Cafarella, M., Downey, D., Popescu, A., Shaked, T., Soderland, S., Weld, D., and Yates, A. 2004. Methods for domain-independent information extraction from the web: an experimental comparison. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Conference.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., and Gachter, S. 2000. Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review 90: 980–994.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C. 1998. WordNet – An Electronic Lexical Database. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gergen, K., Greenberg, M., and Willis, R. (eds.) 1980. Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Gilks, W. R., Richardson, S., and Spiegelhalter, D. J.. 1995. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice. CRC Press.Google Scholar
Girju, R. 2010. Towards social causality: an analysis of interpersonal relations in online blogs and forums. In Proceedings of ICWSM 2010 – International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glickman, O., and Dagan, I. 2003. Identifying lexical paraphrases from a single corpus: a case study for verbs. In International Conference Recent Advances of Natural Language Processing (RANLP).Google Scholar
Goody, E. 1995. Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Griffiths, T., and Steyvers, M. 2004. Finding scientific topics. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.Google Scholar
Grosz, B., and Sidner, C. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12 (3): 175–204.Google Scholar
Halpin, H., and Moore, J. D. 2006. Event extraction in a plot advice agent. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 857–864.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 2007. Further remarks on reciprocal constructions. In Nedjalkov, P. Vladimir (ed.), Reciprocal Constructions, pp. 2087–2115. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
Hearst, M. 1998. Automated Discovery of WordNet Relations. In Fellbaum, C. (ed.), An Electronic Lexical Database and Some of its Applications, pp. 131–151. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1991. Reciprocity and plurality. Linguistic Inquiry 22: 63–101.Google Scholar
Heinrich, G. 2008. Parameter estimation for text analysis. Technical Report, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. 2005. Toward a useful concept of causality for lexical semantics. Journal of Semantics 22 (2): 181–209.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J., Stickel, M., Appelt, D., and Martin, P. 1993. Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence 63 (1–2): 69–142.Google Scholar
Hofman, J., and Wiggins, C. 2008. Bayesian approach to network modularity. Physical Review Letters 100 (25): 258701.Google Scholar
Hofmann, T. 1999. Probabilistic latent semantic indexing. In SIGIR '99: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, New York, NY, USA. ACM, pp. 50–57.Google Scholar
Hovy, E., Marcus, M., Palmer, M., Ramshaw, L., and Weischedel, R. 2006. OntoNotes: the 90% solution. In NAACL '06: Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the NAACL, Companion Volume: Short Papers, New York, NY, USA, pp. 57–60. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hughes, T., and Ramage, D. 2007. Lexical semantic relatedness with random graph walks. In Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL), Prague, Czech Republic, June. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 581–589.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2005. The peculiar logic of value. Journal of Cognition and Culture 6: 375–407.Google Scholar
Joanis, E., Stevenson, S., and James, D. 2008. A general feature space for automatic verb classification. Natural Language Engineering 14 (3): 337–367.Google Scholar
Jordan, M., Ghahramani, Z., Jaakkola, T., and Saul, L. 1998. Introduction to variational methods for graphical methods. In Machine Learning, pp. 183–233. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kemp, C., Tenenbaum, J., Griffiths, T., Yamada, T., and Ueda, N. 2006. Learning systems of concepts with an infinite relational model. In Proceedings of the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
Kingsbury, P., Palmer, M., and Marcus, M. 2002. Adding semantic annotation to the Penn Treebank. In Proceedings of the 2nd Human Language Technology Conference (HLT 2002), San Diego, California, pp. 252–256.Google Scholar
Kipper, K., Dang, H. Trang, and Palmer, M. 2000. Class-based construction of a verb lexicon. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), Austin, TX, pp. 691–696.Google Scholar
König, E. 2005. Reciprocity in language: cultural concepts and patterns of encoding. Uhlenbeck Lecture 23, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Institute for Advanced Study.Google Scholar
Lehnert, W., Dyer, M., Johnson, P., Yang, C., and Harley, S. 1983. BORIS – an experiment in in-depth understanding of narratives. Artificial Intelligence 20 (1): 15–62.Google Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Li, W., Blei, D., and Mccallum, A. 2007. Nonparametric bayes pachinko allocation. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI).Google Scholar
Li, X., and Roth, D. 2001. Exploring evidence for shallow parsing. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL), pp. 107–110.Google Scholar
Lin, D., and Pantel, P. 2001. Discovery of inference rules for question answering. Natural Language Engineering 7: 343–360.Google Scholar
Mandler, J. 1984. Stories, Scripts and Scenes: Aspects of Schema Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Maslova, E., and Nedjalkov, V. 2005. Reciprocal constructions. In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gill, D., and Comrie, B. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures, pp. 430–433. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mei, Q., Cai, D., Zhang, D., and Zhai, C. X. 2008. Topic modeling with network regularization. In WWW '08: Proceeding of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web, New York, NY, USA. ACM, pp. 101–110.Google Scholar
Merlo, P., and Stevenson, S. 2001. Automatic verb classification based on statistical distributions of argument structure. Computational Linguistics 27: 373–408.Google Scholar
Minnen, G., Carroll, J., and Pearce, D. 2000. Robust, applied morphological generation. In INLG '00: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Natural Language Generation, Morristown, NJ, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 201–208.Google Scholar
Mitzenmacher, M., and Upfal, E. 2005. Probability and Computing: Randomized Algorithms and Probabilistic Analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nigam, K., McCallum, A., Thrun, S., and Mitchell, T. 2000. Text classification from labeled and unlabeled documents using EM. Machine Learning 39: 103–134.Google Scholar
Parkkinen, J., Gyenge, A., Sinkkonen, J., and Kaski, S. 2009. A block model suitable for sparse graphs. In: Blockeel, H., Borgwardt, K. and Yan, X. (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Mining and Learning with Graphs, pp. 2–4. Belgium: Leuven.Google Scholar
Paul, M., and Girju, R. 2009. Cross-cultural analysis of blogs and forums with mixed-collection topic models. In Proceedings of the Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing Conference (EMNLP), Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Paul, M., Girju, R., and Li, C. 2009. Mining the web for reciprocal relationships. In CoNLL '09: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 75–83.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J., and Verhagen, M. 2009. SemEval-2010 task 13: evaluating events, time expressions, and temporal relations (TempEval-2). In Proceedings of the Workshop on Semantic Evaluations: Recent Achievements and Future Directions (SEW-2009), Boulder, Colorado. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 112–116.Google Scholar
Rabiner, L., and Juang, B. 1986. An introduction to hidden Markov models. ASSP Magazine, IEEE [see also IEEE Signal Processing Magazine] 3 (1): 4–16.Google Scholar
Ramage, D., Rosen, E., Chuang, J., Manning, C. D., and McFarland, D. A. 2009. Topic modeling for the social sciences. In NIPS 2009 Workshop on Applications for Topic Models.Google Scholar
Resnik, P. 1993. Selection and Information: A Class-based Approach to Lexical Relationships. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Resnik, P., and Diab, M. 2000. Measuring verb similarity. In 12th Second Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (COGS CI).Google Scholar
Sahlins, M., ed. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
Schank, R., and Abelson, R. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tsuruoka, Y., and Tsujii, J. 2005. Bidirectional inference with the easiest-first strategy for tagging sequence data. In HLT '05: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 467–474.Google Scholar
Turney, P. 2006. Similarity of semantic relations. Computational Linguistics 32 (3): 379–416.Google Scholar
Verhagen, M., Gaizauskas, R., Schilder, F., Hepple, M., Katz, G., and Pustejovsky, J. 2007. SemEval-2007 Task 15: TempEval temporal relation identification. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval-2007), Prague, Czech Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 75–80.Google Scholar
Wallach, H. M. 2006. Topic modeling: beyond bag-of-words. In ICML '06: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 977–984.Google Scholar
Webber, B., Knott, A., Stone, M., and Joshi, A. 2003. Anaphora and discourse structure. Computational Linguistics 29 (4): 545–588.Google Scholar
Wilson, T., Wiebe, J., and Hoffmann, P. 2005. Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the Human Language Technology (HLT/EMNLP) Conference.Google Scholar
Zanzotto, F. M., Pennacchiotti, M., and Pazienza, M. T. 2006. Discovering asymmetric entailment relations between verbs using selectional preferences. In International Conference on Computational Linguistics and 44th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).Google Scholar
Zhai, C., Velivelli, A., and Yu, B. 2004. A cross-collection mixture model for comparative text mining. In Proceedings of KDD 22204, pp. 743–748.Google Scholar