Ruijie Xi

h-index14
2papers
736citations

2 Papers

2.3SIOct 30, 2023
Moral Sparks in Social Media Narratives

Ruijie Xi, Munindar P. Singh

There is increasing interest in building computational models of moral reasoning by people to enable effective interaction by Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents. We examine interactions on social media to understand human moral judgments in real-life ethical scenarios. Specifically, we examine posts from a popular Reddit subreddit (i.e., a subcommunity) called r/AmITheAsshole, where authors and commenters share their moral judgments on who (i.e., which participant of the described scenario) is blameworthy. To investigate the underlying reasoning influencing moral judgments, we focus on excerpts-which we term moral sparks-from original posts that some commenters include to indicate what motivates their judgments. To this end, we examine how (1) events activating social commonsense and (2) linguistic signals affect the identified moral sparks and their subsequent judgments. By examining over 24672 posts and 175988 comments, we find that event-related negative character traits (e.g., immature and rude) attract attention and stimulate blame, implying a dependent relationship between character traits and moral values. Specifically, we focus on causal graphs involving events (c-events) that activate social commonsense. We observe that c-events are perceived with varying levels of informativeness, influencing moral spark and judgment assignment in distinct ways. This observation is reinforced by examining linguistic features describing semantically similar c-events. Moreover, language influencing commenters' cognitive processes enhances the probability of an excerpt becoming a moral spark, while factual and concrete descriptions tend to inhibit this effect.

3.4CLOct 11, 2024
A Benchmark for Cross-Domain Argumentative Stance Classification on Social Media

Jiaqing Yuan, Ruijie Xi, Munindar P. Singh

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. We release the dataset and code in this study at hidden for anonymity.