skip to main content
10.1145/3617023.3617033acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebmediaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

eXplainable Artificial Intelligence in sentiment analysis of posts about Covid-19 vaccination on Twitter

Published:23 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Considering the impact of the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the most diverse branches of society and the use of eXplicable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) to improve the interpretability of these intelligent models, this paper aims to analyze some existing XAI methods to verify their effectiveness. To this end, experiments were conducted with LIME, SHAP, and Eli5 solutions in a scenario of sentiment classifications in Twitter posts about the Covid-19 vaccination process in Brazil. Thus, it is observed that the tools provide relevant information about the aspects that interfere in the classification of tweets as favorable or not favorable to vaccination, which allows concluding that the methods bring the necessary transparency to confirm the AI decisions regarding the sentiments related to the vaccination process in Brazil.

References

  1. Sercan Ö. Arik and Tomas Pfister. 2021. TabNet: Attentive Interpretable Tabular Learning. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 35, 8 (May 2021), 6679–6687. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v35i8.16826Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Diogo M Camacho, Katherine M Collins, Rani K Powers, James C Costello, and James J Collins. 2018. Next-generation machine learning for biological networks. Cell 173, 7 (2018), 1581–1592.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. X. Cui, J.M. Lee, and J. Po-An Hsieh. 2019. An integrative 3C evaluation framework for explainable artificial intelligence, In AMCIS 2019 Proceedings. 25th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2019 (2019), 1–10. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85073530749&partnerID=40&md5=1710d8543916f48837ddbf593b0ae88d cited By 0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [4] Ministério da Saúde. 2021. https://www.gov.br/saude/pt-br/vacinacaoGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Benjamin P. Evans, Bing Xue, and Mengjie Zhang. 2019. What’s inside the Black-Box? A Genetic Programming Method for Interpreting Complex Machine Learning Models. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (Prague, Czech Republic) (GECCO ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1012–1020. https://doi.org/10.1145/3321707.3321726Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. J.-M. Fellous, G. Sapiro, A. Rossi, H. Mayberg, and M. Ferrante. 2019. Explainable Artificial Intelligence for Neuroscience: Behavioral Neurostimulation. Frontiers in Neuroscience 13 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.01346 cited By 0.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Alec Go, Richa Bhayani, and Lei Huang. 2009. Twitter sentiment classification using distant supervision. Processing 150 (01 2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. David Gunning. 2017. Explainable artificial intelligence (xai). Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), nd Web 2 (2017), 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. David Hardage and Peyman Najafirad. 2020. Hate and Toxic Speech Detection in the Context of Covid-19 Pandemic using XAI: Ongoing Applied Research. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on NLP for COVID-19 (Part 2) at EMNLP 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.nlpcovid19-2.36Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Paul Harmon, Rex Maus, and William Morrissey. 1988. Expert systems: tools and applications. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Dora Kaufman. 2019. A inteligência artificial irá suplantar a inteligência humana?Estação das letras e cores EDI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. M Korobov. 2017. Explaining behavior of Machine Learning models with eli5 library. In Proceedings of the EuroPython Congress.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Bing Liu. 2012. Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02145-9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In NIPS’17: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, United States, 4765–4774.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. John McCarthy, Marvin L Minsky, Nathaniel Rochester, and Claude E Shannon. 2006. A proposal for the dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence, august 31, 1955. AI magazine 27, 4 (2006), 12–12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Donald Michie, David J Spiegelhalter, CC Taylor, 1994. Machine learning. Neural and Statistical Classification 13, 1994 (1994), 1–298.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Brent Mittelstadt, Chris Russell, and Sandra Wachter. 2019. Explaining Explanations in AI. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Atlanta, GA, USA) (FAT* ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287574Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Marco Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. “Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Demonstrations. Association for Computational Linguistics, San Diego, California, 97–101. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N16-3020Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Stuart J Russell and Peter Norvig. 2004. Inteligência artificial. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Nadia Felix Felipe da Silva. 2016. Análise de sentimentos em textos curtos provenientes de redes sociais. Ph. D. Dissertation. Universidade de São Paulo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Alex J Smola and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2004. A tutorial on support vector regression. Statistics and computing 14 (2004), 199–222.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Ah-Hwee Tan 1999. Text mining: The state of the art and the challenges. In Proceedings of the pakdd 1999 workshop on knowledge disocovery from advanced databases, Vol. 8. 65–70.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Alan M Turing. 2009. Computing machinery and intelligence. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Wil Van Der Aalst and Wil van der Aalst. 2016. Data science in action. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosina O. Weber, Adam J. Johs, Jianfei Li, and Kent Huang. 2018. Investigating Textual Case-Based XAI. In Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development, Michael T. Cox, Peter Funk, and Shahina Begum (Eds.). Vol. 11156. Springer International Publishing, 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01081-2_29 Series Title: Lecture Notes in Computer Science.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Christine T. Wolf and Kathryn E. Ringland. 2020. Designing Accessible, Explainable AI (XAI) Experiences. SIGACCESS Access. Comput.125, Article 6 (March 2020), 1 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386296.3386302Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Feiyu Xu, Hans Uszkoreit, Yangzhou Du, Wei Fan, Dongyan Zhao, and Jun Zhu. 2019. Explainable AI: A Brief Survey on History, Research Areas, Approaches and Challenges. In Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, Jie Tang, Min-Yen Kan, Dongyan Zhao, Sujian Li, and Hongying Zan (Eds.). Vol. 11839. Springer International Publishing, 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32236-6_51 Series Title: Lecture Notes in Computer Science.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Fumeng Yang, Zhuanyi Huang, Jean Scholtz, and Dustin L. Arendt. 2020. How Do Visual Explanations Foster End Users’ Appropriate Trust in Machine Learning?. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Cagliari, Italy) (IUI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1145/3377325.3377480Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Arjumand Younus, M Atif Qureshi, Mingyeong Jeon, Arefeh Kazemi, and Simon Caton. 2022. XAI Analysis of Online Activism to Capture Integration in Irish Society Through Twitter. In Social Informatics: 13th International Conference, SocInfo 2022, Glasgow, UK, October 19–21, 2022, Proceedings. Springer, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 233–244.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. eXplainable Artificial Intelligence in sentiment analysis of posts about Covid-19 vaccination on Twitter

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      WebMedia '23: Proceedings of the 29th Brazilian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web
      October 2023
      285 pages
      ISBN:9798400709081
      DOI:10.1145/3617023

      Copyright © 2023 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 23 October 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate270of873submissions,31%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)42
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format