Warning: This paper may contain triggering language for some readers, especially survivors of sexual violence. Survivors of sexual violence sometimes share their experiences on social media, revealing their feelings and emotions and seeking advice. On platforms such as Reddit, some stories can be long---up to 40,000 characters. We posit that such long stories are demanding for helpers to read and respond to. Prior research has indicated that parts of these stories describing the incident, the effects on the poster, and advice requested by the poster are important. Highlighting those parts can draw helpers' attention toward key information and assist them in reading and responding to long stories. We first examine the stories posted on Reddit for the prevalence of these parts. Second, we develop a computational model to highlight these parts of a story. On ten-fold cross-validation of a dataset, our model achieves a macro F1 score of 0.82. In addition, we contribute METHREE, a dataset comprising 8,947 labeled sentences for these parts from Reddit stories. A survey of users who are helpers on some relevant subreddits shows that the parts highlighted by our tool represent important information and assist them while reading and responding to long stories. We find that these tool-generated highlights statistically significantly reduce the demandingness of long stories. Moreover, almost all helpers felt that highlighted stories are helpful and easier to read, understand, and respond to than nonhighlighted ones. In particular, on a 4-point Likert scale, there is about 0.7 point reduction in demandingess when stories were presented with highlights.

Argumentative stance classification plays a key role in identifying authors' viewpoints on specific topics. However, generating diverse pairs of argumentative sentences across various domains is challenging. Existing benchmarks often come from a single domain or focus on a limited set of topics. Additionally, manual annotation for accurate labeling is time-consuming and labor-intensive. To address these challenges, we propose leveraging platform rules, readily available expert-curated content, and large language models to bypass the need for human annotation. Our approach produces a multidomain benchmark comprising 4,498 topical claims and 30,961 arguments from three sources, spanning 21 domains. We benchmark the dataset in fully supervised, zero-shot, and few-shot settings, shedding light on the strengths and limitations of different methodologies.

Online storytelling is an essential channel for users to express their experiences and opinions and therefore influence online society. Yet, despite its importance, approaches to story understanding on social media have not advanced sufficiently. Specifically, current approaches can carry out high-level, aggregate analyses on a corpus of stories but do not provide a way of understanding individual stories. We consider a major source of social behavior, app reviews, which surprisingly are rarely studied in social media research. We observe that app reviews often contain one or more stories. These stories exhibit complex structures and are often presented via events that are not placed in their natural order. Accordingly, we introduce Saga, an approach that carries out a deep analysis of the event-based structures and substructures arising in app reviews. Saga’s main contribution is how it goes beyond the state of the art in identifying fine-grained story (sub)structures. In addition, it supports querying stories (and their containing app reviews) according to these (sub)structures. These specific (sub)structures help identify stories that serve different information goals. Saga is evaluated both computationally on a publicly available data source and via a human study validating the helpfulness in addressing various information goals.

Moral reasoning reflects how people acquire and apply moral rules in particular situations. With social interactions increasingly happening online, social media provides an unprecedented opportunity to assess in-the-wild moral reasoning. We investigate the commonsense aspects of morality empirically using data from a Reddit subcommunity (i.e., a subreddit), r/AmITheAsshole, where an author describes their behavior in a situation and seeks comments about whether that behavior was appropriate. A commenter judges and provides reasons for whether an author or others’ behaviors were wrong. We focus on the novel problem of understanding the moral reasoning implicit in user comments about the propriety of an author’s behavior. Specifically, we explore associations between the common elements of the indicated rationale and the extractable social factors. Our results suggest that a moral response depends on the author’s gender and the topic of a post. Typical situations and behaviors include expressing anger emotion and using sensible words (e.g., f-ck, hell, and damn) in work-related situations. Moreover, we find that commonly expressed reasons also depend on commenters’ interests.

Understanding an online argumentative discussion is essential for understanding users' opinions on a topic and their underlying reasoning. A key challenge in determining completeness and persuasiveness of argumentative discussions is to assess how arguments under a topic are connected in a logical and coherent manner. Online argumentative discussions, in contrast to essays or face-to-face communication, challenge techniques for judging argument relevance because online discussions involve multiple participants and often exhibit incoherence in reasoning and inconsistencies in writing style. We define relevance as the logical and topical connections between small texts representing argument fragments in online discussions. We provide a corpus comprising pairs of sentences, labeled with argumentative relevance between the sentences in each pair. We propose a computational approach relying on content reduction and a Siamese neural network architecture for modeling argumentative connections and determining argumentative relevance between texts. Experimental results indicate that our approach is effective in measuring relevance between arguments, and outperforms strong and well-adopted baselines. Further analysis demonstrates the benefit of using our argumentative relevance encoding on a downstream task, predicting how impactful an online comment is to certain topic, comparing to encoding that does not consider logical connection.

Conversations among online users sometimes derail, i.e., break down into personal attacks. Derailment interferes with the healthy growth of communities in cyberspace. The ability to predict whether an ongoing conversation will derail could provide valuable advance, even real-time, insight to both interlocutors and moderators. Prior approaches predict conversation derailment retrospectively without the ability to forestall the derailment proactively. Some existing works attempt to make dynamic predictions as the conversation develops, but fail to incorporate multisource information, such as conversational structure and distance to derailment. We propose a hierarchical transformer-based framework that combines utterance-level and conversation-level information to capture fine-grained contextual semantics. We propose a domain-adaptive pretraining objective to unite conversational structure information and a multitask learning scheme to leverage the distance from each utterance to derailment. An evaluation of our framework on two conversation derailment datasets shows an improvement in F1 score for the prediction of derailment. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of incorporating multisource information for predicting the derailment of a conversation.

Specifying a normative multiagent system (nMAS) is challenging, because different agents often have conflicting requirements. Whereas existing approaches can resolve clear-cut conflicts, tradeoffs might occur in practice among alternative nMAS specifications with no apparent resolution. To produce an nMAS specification that is acceptable to each agent, we model the specification process as a negotiation over a set of norms. We propose an agent-based negotiation framework, where agents’ requirements are represented as values (e.g., patient safety, privacy, and national security), and an agent revises the nMAS specification to promote its values by executing a set of norm revision rules that incorporate ontology-based reasoning. To demonstrate that our framework supports creating a transparent and accountable nMAS specification, we conduct an experiment with human participants who negotiate against our agent. Our findings show that our negotiation agent reaches better agreements (with small p -value and large effect size) faster than a baseline strategy. Moreover, participants perceive that our agent enables more collaborative and transparent negotiations than the baseline (with small p -value and large effect size in particular settings) toward reaching an agreement.

Understanding how people change their views during multiparty argumentative discussions is important in applications that involve human communication, e.g., in social media and education. Existing research focuses on lexical features of individual comments, dynamics of discussions, or the personalities of participants but deemphasizes the cumulative influence of the interplay of comments by different participants on a participant’s mindset. We address the task of predicting the points where a user’s view changes given an entire discussion, thereby tackling the confusion due to multiple plausible alternatives when considering the entirety of a discussion.

User location is crucial in understanding the dynamics of user activities, especially in relating their online and offline aspects. However, users' social media activities, such as tweets sent, do not always reveal their location. We consider the problem of estimating geo-tags for tweets and develop a comprehensive approach that incorporates textual content, the user's personalized behavior, and the user's social relationships. Our approach, Percimo, considers the two major kinds of communal attachment, which have distinct computational ramifications. We evaluate Percimo via three geo-social graphs based on the mutual-follow relationships of Twitter users, their geographical distance (computed from their geotagged tweets), and their preferences for location categories (collected from Foursquare). We find that Percimo yields a smaller prediction error than the two state-of-the-art approaches we compare with.

The overarching vision of social machines is to facilitate social processes by having computers provide administrative support. We conceive of a social machine as a sociotechnical system (STS): a software-supported system in which autonomous principals such as humans and organizations interact to exchange information and services. Existing approaches for social machines emphasize the technical aspects and inadequately support the meanings of social processes, leaving them informally realized in human interactions. We posit that a fundamental rethinking is needed to incorporate accountability, essential for addressing the openness of the Web and the autonomy of its principals. We introduce Interaction-Oriented Software Engineering (IOSE) as a paradigm expressly suited to capturing the social basis of STSs. Motivated by promoting openness and autonomy, IOSE focuses not on implementation but on social protocols, specifying how social relationships, characterizing the accountability of the concerned parties, progress as they interact. Motivated by providing computational support, IOSE adopts the accountability representation to capture the meaning of a social machine's states and transitions.

Link prediction on social media is an important problem for recommendation systems. Understanding the interplay of users' sentiments and social relationships can be potentially valuable. Specifically, we study how to exploit sentiment homophily for link prediction. We evaluate our approach on a dataset gathered fro Twitter that consists of tweets sent in one month during U.S. 2012 political campaign along with the "follows" relationship between users. Our first contribution is defining a set of sentiment-based features that help predict the likelihood of two users becoming "friends" (i.e., mutually mentioning or following each other) based on their sentiments toward topics of mutual interest. Our evaluation in a supervised learning framework demonstrates the benefits of sentiment-based features in link prediction. We find that Adamic-Adar and Euclidean distance measures are the best predictors. Our second contribution is proposing a factor graph model that incorporates a sentiment-based variant of cognitive balance theory. Our evaluation shows that, when tie strength is not too weak, our model is more effective in link prediction than traditional machine learning techniques.

Increasingly, software engineering involvesopensystems consisting of autonomous and heterogeneous participants oragentswho carry out loosely coupled interactions. Accordingly, understanding and specifying communications among agents is a key concern. A focus on ways to formalizemeaningdistinguishes agent communication from traditional distributed computing: meaning provides a basis for flexible interactions and compliance checking. Over the years, a number of approaches have emerged with some essential and some irrelevant distinctions drawn among them. As agent abstractions gain increasing traction in the software engineering of open systems, it is important to resolve the irrelevant and highlight the essential distinctions, so that future research can be focused in the most productive directions. This article is an outcome of extensive discussions among agent communication researchers, aimed at taking stock of the field and at developing, criticizing, and refining their positions on specific approaches and future challenges. This article serves some important purposes, including identifying (1) points of broad consensus; (2) points where substantive differences remain; and (3) interesting directions of future work.

No abstract available.

A (business) protocol describes, in high-level terms, a pattern of communication between two or more participants, specifically via the creation and manipulation of the commitments between them. In this manner, a protocol offers both flexibility and rigor: a participant may communicate in any way it chooses as long as it discharges all of its activated commitments. Protocols thus promise benefits in engineering cross-organizational business processes. However, software engineering using protocols presupposes a formalization of protocols and a notion of therefinementof one protocol by another. Refinement for protocols is both intuitively obvious (e.g.,PayViaCheckis clearly a kind ofPay) and technically nontrivial (e.g., compared toPay,PayViaCheckinvolves different participants exchanging different messages). This article formalizes protocols and their refinement. It develops Proton, an analysis tool for protocol specifications that overlays a model checker to compute whether one protocol refines another with respect to a stated mapping. Proton and its underlying theory are evaluated by formalizing several protocols from the literature and verifying all and only the expected refinements.

We understand a sociotechnical system as a multistakeholder cyber-physical system. We introduce governance as the administration of such a system by the stakeholders themselves. In this regard, governance is a peer-to-peer notion and contrasts with traditional management, which is a top-down hierarchical notion. Traditionally, there is no computational support for governance and it is achieved through out-of-band interactions among system administrators. Not surprisingly, traditional approaches simply do not scale up to large sociotechnical systems. We develop an approach for governance based on a computational representation of norms in organizations. Our approach is motivated by the Ocean Observatory Initiative, a thirty-year $400 million project, which supports a variety of resources dealing with monitoring and studying the world's oceans. These resources include autonomous underwater vehicles, ocean gliders, buoys, and other instrumentation as well as more traditional computational resources. Our approach has the benefit of directly reflecting stakeholder needs and assuring stakeholders of the correctness of the resulting governance decisions while yielding adaptive resource allocation in the face of changes in both stakeholder needs and physical circumstances.

In multiagent interactions, such as e-commerce and file sharing, being able to accurately assess the trustworthiness of others is important for agents to protect themselves from losing utility. Focusing on rational agents in e-commerce, we prove that an agent's discount factor (time preference of utility) is a direct measure of the agent's trustworthiness for a set of reasonably general assumptions and definitions. We propose a general list of desiderata for trust systems and discuss how discount factors as trustworthiness meet these desiderata. We discuss how discount factors are a robust measure when entering commitments that exhibit moral hazards. Using an online market as a motivating example, we derive some analytical methods both for measuring discount factors and for aggregating the measurements.

Traditional approaches to knowledge management are essentially limited to document management. However, much knowledge in organizations or communities resides in an informal social network and may be accessed only by asking the right people. This paper describes MARS, a multiagent referral system for knowledge management. MARS assigns a software agent to each user. The agents facilitate their users' interactions and help manage their personal social networks. Moreover, the agents cooperate with one another by giving and taking referrals to help their users find the right parties to contact for a specific knowledge need.

Workflows are the semantically appropriate composite activities in heterogeneous computing environments. Such environments typically comprise a great diversity of locally autonomous databases, applications and interfaces. Much good research has focused on the semantics of workflows and how to capture them in different extended transaction models. We address the complementary issues pertaining to how workflows may be declaratively specified and how distributed constraints may be derived from those specifications to enable local control, thus obviating a centralized scheduler. Previous approaches to this problem were limited and often lacked a formal semantics.

No abstract available.

The Carnot Project at MCC is addressing the problem of logically unifying physically-distributed, enterprise-wide, heterogeneous information. Carnot will provide a user with the means to navigate information efficiently and transparently, to update that information consistently, and to write applications easily for large, heterogeneous, distributed information systems. A prototype has been implemented which provides services for (a) enterprise modeling and model integration to create an enterprise-wide view, (b) semantic expansion of queries on the view to queries on individual resources, and (c) inter-resource consistency management. This paper describes the Carnot approach to transaction processing in environments where heterogeneous, distributed, and autonomous systems are required to coordinate the update of the local information under their control. In this approach, subtransactions are represented as a set of tasks and a set of intertask dependencies that capture the semantics of a particular relaxed transaction model. A scheduler has been implemented which schedules the execution of these tasks in the Carnot environment so that all intertask dependencies are satisfied.

This paper explores the specification and semantics of multiagent problem-solving systems, focusing on the representations that agents have of each other. It provides a declarative representation for such systems. Several procedural solutions to a well-known test-bed problem are considered, and the requirements they impose on different agents are identified. A study of these requirements yields a representational scheme based on temporal logic for specifying the acting, perceiving, communicating, and reasoning abilities of computational agents. A formal semantics is provided for this scheme. The resulting representation is highly declarative, and useful for describing systems of agents solving problems reactively.>