Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Behavioral Homophily in Social Media via Inverse Reinforcement Learning: A Reddit Case Study

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read IRL policies reveal Reddit's hidden 'disagreers'.

desk verdict Useful measurement idea and rich Reddit study, but the IRL core is under-specified: no transition kernel is given, so the policies and homophily scores aren't currently reproducible. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02943 v1 pith:24XELRBO submitted 2025-02-05 cs.SI cs.LG

Lanqin Yuan , Philipp J. Schneider , Marian-Andrei Rizoiu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SIcs.LG
keywords homophilyinversereinforcementlearningbehavioralRedditSWKLsocialmediadynamicsonlinecommunitiesdisagreementdetection
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

The paper claims that homophily on Reddit can be measured behaviorally rather than by shared topics or follower ties. It treats each user as an agent whose posting, replying, and waiting-for-reply choices are the output of an unknown reward function, infers that reward with maximum-entropy deep inverse reinforcement learning, and compares users by the similarity of the resulting policies. On a six-year sample of 662 users and 5.9 million interactions, the measure separates users into behavioral personas, including a class of 'Disagreers' whose main activity is posting disagreeing replies. The paper's central empirical claim is that this behavioral measure captures structure that topic-based homophily misses, for instance users in r/soccer and r/leagueoflegends who behave alike while discussing unrelated subjects.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the per-user policy matrix: a 12 x 6 table produced by maximum-entropy deep IRL from a trajectory of Reddit interactions. The 12 states encode conversation positions (thread creation, root comment, reply, receiving a reply, each split by agreement, neutrality, or disagreement), and the 6 actions are waiting for a reply, creating a thread, posting a root comment, or posting an agreeing, neutral, or disagreeing reply. The Symmetric Weighted Kullback-Leibler Divergence (SWKL) symmetrizes the KL divergence between two users' policies and weights each state by how often that user visits it, so the comparison is dominated by states that characterize each user. The machinery carries the argument because the paper's persona clusters and cross-subreddit comparisons are all computed from these policy matrices, not from the content of the comments.

What would settle it

Re-run the policy inference twice: once with a uniform transition kernel and once with a transition kernel estimated from the observed reply patterns. If the SWKL persona clusters and the r/soccer-r/leagueoflegends anomaly change materially under the two kernels, then the behavioral-homophily result depends on an assumption the paper leaves unspecified; if they are unchanged, the measure is robust to that assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery the paper argues for is that a user's inferred IRL policy is a meaningful signature of that user's online behavior, and that the Symmetric Weighted Kullback-Leibler (SWKL) divergence between two policies is a valid measure of behavioral homophily. Two users count as behaviorally similar when their action distributions over the same conversation states are close, with rarely visited states down-weighted. Applied to Reddit, the approach finds that behavioral and topical homophily usually align, but not always: r/leagueoflegends and r/soccer users are far apart in topic but close in behavior, and political subreddits are rich in 'Disagreers' while meme and gaming communities have none. The paper therefore claims that behavior is an independent dimension of homophily, one that can be estimated for anonymous users on platforms without explicit social networks.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the Reddit environment has a known or learnable transition model P, describing how other users and threads respond to a user's action, even though the paper never specifies or estimates P; without it the inferred policies are not solutions to a well-posed inverse-reinforcement-learning problem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Behavioral homophily can be computed for anonymous users on platforms with no follower graph or hashtag structure, since it needs only public action sequences.
  • Subreddit membership is not a reliable guide to behavior: users from different home subreddits can share a persona, and users within one subreddit can diverge.
  • A measurable class of users, the Disagreers, exists across political and news subreddits and is nearly absent from meme, gaming, and support communities.
  • Topic-based homophily and behavioral homophily are partially independent; agreement between them is the empirical rule, and the r/leagueoflegends-r/soccer pair is a documented exception.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the policy-based measure is taken seriously, a natural next test is whether SWKL-similar users actually form social ties or reciprocate replies; the paper does not test this directly.
  • The persona clustering suggests a platform-design lever: communities wanting substantive debate might try to shift users from the Disagreer pattern toward Balanced or Root Favored patterns, though the paper does not propose interventions.
  • Because the policy space is compact and label-free, the same IRL-then-SWKL pipeline could be applied to other hierarchical forums or to logs of conversational agents, not just Reddit.
  • A stricter robustness check would be to learn the environmental response distribution from data rather than assume it; if the soccer-esports anomaly and persona clusters survive that replacement, the measure stands on firmer ground.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new measure of behavioral homophily on Reddit. It models each user as an agent in a Markov decision process, uses maximum-entropy deep inverse reinforcement learning to infer a policy from the user's observed interactions, and then defines behavioral homophily between two users via a symmetric weighted KL divergence between their inferred policies. The method is applied to 662 users and 5.9 million interactions across 15 subreddits, and the inferred policies are clustered into five personas, including "Disagreers." The authors compare behavioral homophily with a BERTopic-based topical homophily baseline, report a soccer/League-of-Legends case where behaviors align despite topically distant communities, and examine temporal stability of the two homophily measures.

Significance. If the IRL inference is well-posed, the paper offers a novel and potentially valuable operationalization of homophily for platforms without explicit social ties, and it is grounded in an unusually large Reddit corpus. The authors make concrete falsifiable claims, such as the existence of a "Disagreer" persona and the behavioral similarity between soccer and e-sports users, and they explicitly contrast their measure with topic-based homophily. However, the central MDP specification is incomplete: the transition kernel required by the soft Q-learning step is never defined or estimated, so the policies, SWKL values, and persona clusters are not currently well-defined. The validation appendix also does not test the homophily measure against a meaningful baseline, which weakens the central claim as presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.5 / Algorithm 1] Section 3.5 defines the state space and action space but never specifies or estimates the transition kernel P of the MDP, even though Algorithm 1's soft Q-learning update requires P. Some transitions are deterministic consequences of the user's own action, but the "Wait reply" action transitions to GR+, GR~, and GR- states whose probabilities depend on other users' responses, and those probabilities are not given or estimated. Without P, the soft Bellman backup, the reward gradient, and the inferred policy are not defined, and every downstream object (SWKL homophily, k-means personas, subreddit heatmaps) inherits this arbitrariness. The authors should either specify a transition kernel estimated from the observed data, or explicitly adopt a model-free IRL/soft-Q variant and describe how the missing P is bypassed.
  2. [Section 3.5 (state-action redundancy)] The stance labels appear both in the state space (IR+/IR~/IR-, ER+/ER~/ER-, GR+/GR~/GR-) and in the action space (PR+/PR~/PR-). Since posting a reply with a given stance transitions to an engaged-reply state with the same stance label, part of the inferred policy is an almost deterministic re-encoding of the user's own previous action rather than a learned reward-driven choice. For example, a high probability of PR- in state ER- may simply reflect a first-order Markov fingerprint of the user's own prior behavior. This complicates the interpretation of the "Disagreer" persona and the behavioral homophily measure. The authors should remove the redundancy, or include a first-order Markov baseline and show that the IRL policy adds signal beyond it.
  3. [Appendix C.2] The validation in Appendix C.2 compares the log-likelihood of a user's trajectory under the inferred policy with the log-likelihood under random policies. This is a goodness-of-fit check on the same trajectories used to fit the policy; it does not validate the transition model, nor does it validate the SWKL homophily measure as a meaningful behavioral comparison. A random policy is a weak baseline because a policy learned by maximum-likelihood IRL will naturally assign high likelihood to its training data. The authors should compare against a first-order Markov policy computed directly from state-action frequencies, and preferably evaluate the homophily measure on held-out trajectories or against an external criterion, such as the propensity of policy-similar users to interact.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2] The phrase "compiled an preliminary user set" should read "compiled a preliminary user set."
  2. [Figure 3c] The neutral reply action appears as PR~ in the text and as "PR□" in the figure legend; the notation should be made consistent.
  3. [Section 3.4 / Appendix A.3.2] The topic modeling step uses a minimum threshold of 1,000 documents per topic, but the paper does not state whether this threshold was chosen in advance or after inspecting the resulting number of topics; please clarify.
  4. [General] The paper does not state whether the data and code used for the IRL inference, clustering, and validation are available; providing an artifact or a detailed reproducibility statement would strengthen the contribution.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

In-sample policy validation is circular, but the headline cross-user homophily findings are not forced by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix C.2, 'Descriptiveness of User Policy' (log-likelihood equation and Fig. 11)]
    "We validate the descriptive accuracy of inferred policies by comparing the log-likelihood of a user's actual trajectory under their own policy against that of randomly generated policies. Intuitively, if the inferred policies accurately describe the user, the user's demonstrated trajectory should be more likely under their own policy than under random policies, meaning their policy should rank near the top."

    Algorithm 1 infers the reward and policy by maximizing the likelihood of the observed demonstrations τ (line 7 computes ∂L/∂R using the state-action distribution from τ). Appendix C.2 then evaluates the likelihood of the same τ under the fitted policy π_u and ranks it against random policies. Because π_u was optimized on τ_u, a high rank on τ_u is an in-sample goodness-of-fit result, not independent evidence that the policy captures behavior; any policy close to the empirical state-action frequencies would pass. This validation also does not test the transition kernel P required by soft Q-learning. Since the SWKL homophily measure and persona clusters are built from these same fitted policies, the validation does not independently support the central behavioral-homophily claims.

full rationale

The central derivation is an empirical pipeline, not a tautology: behavioral homophily is defined as SWKL between per-user IRL policies, and the headline results (r/soccer–r/leagueoflegends behavioral similarity despite topical distance; the Disagreer persona) emerge from cross-user comparisons of those policies and are not encoded in any single user's fitting objective. The one genuinely circular artifact is the Appendix C.2 validation, which scores each user's training trajectory under the policy fitted to that same trajectory; this is a goodness-of-fit check and cannot independently validate the IRL policies. Two related concerns are correctness risks rather than circularity: Section 3.5 never specifies the transition kernel P required by soft Q-learning, so the IRL problem as written is underspecified, and the state/action spaces share stance labels (IR+/ER+/GR+ versus PR+/PR~/PR-), so the policies may partly re-encode first-order reply-stance frequencies. Neither concern makes the derivation equal to its inputs by the paper's own equations, so they do not raise the circularity score beyond the in-sample validation issue. There are no load-bearing self-citation chains or imported uniqueness theorems.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on an unstated transition model and on ad hoc state and action definitions that duplicate reply stance. The topic baseline depends on a hand-picked threshold. No new physical or conceptual entity is postulated beyond empirical clusters.

free parameters (3)
  • Discount factor gamma = 0.9
    Chosen by hand (Appendix C.1); directly shapes the inferred policy through soft Q-learning and therefore affects all policy-based results.
  • Number of personas k = 5
    Selected post hoc from conflicting silhouette and gap statistics (Appendix B); the persona interpretation depends on this choice.
  • BERTopic minimum documents per topic = 1000
    Threshold chosen to limit topics, yielding K=484; affects the topic homophily baseline and therefore the comparison between topic and behavioral homophily.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Reddit user behavior is generated by a stationary MDP with a well-defined transition kernel P
    Section 3.5 defines the MDP tuple but never specifies or estimates P; the IRL algorithm silently requires this.
  • ad hoc to paper The state space is a sufficient summary of user interaction context
    States encode reply stance (e.g., ER+, IR-) which also appears in the action space (PR+, PR-), making part of the policy deterministic by construction (Section 3.5).
  • domain assumption The fine-tuned DeBERTaV3 argumentation classifier generalizes to all 15 subreddits
    The classifier was trained on DEBAGREEMENT from 5 subreddits (Section 3.4); its out-of-domain accuracy on subreddits such as r/The_Donald or r/NoFap is not reported.
  • domain assumption BERTopic topics extracted from the same user documents are a valid topical representation
    Topics are inferred from the 5.9M documents of the 662 users themselves, so topic homophily and behavioral homophily share the same corpus (Section 3.4 and Appendix A.3.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Behavioral Homophily in Social Media via Inverse Reinforcement Learning: A Reddit Case Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24XELRBO

@misc{pith2026250202943,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Behavioral Homophily in Social Media via Inverse Reinforcement Learning: A Reddit Case Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/24XELRBO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02943}
}
read the original abstract

Online communities play a critical role in shaping societal discourse and influencing collective behavior in the real world. The tendency for people to connect with others who share similar characteristics and views, known as homophily, plays a key role in the formation of echo chambers which further amplify polarization and division. Existing works examining homophily in online communities traditionally infer it using content- or adjacency-based approaches, such as constructing explicit interaction networks or performing topic analysis. These methods fall short for platforms where interaction networks cannot be easily constructed and fail to capture the complex nature of user interactions across the platform. This work introduces a novel approach for quantifying user homophily. We first use an Inverse Reinforcement Learning (IRL) framework to infer users' policies, then use these policies as a measure of behavioral homophily. We apply our method to Reddit, conducting a case study across 5.9 million interactions over six years, demonstrating how this approach uncovers distinct behavioral patterns and user roles that vary across different communities. We further validate our behavioral homophily measure against traditional content-based homophily, offering a powerful method for analyzing social media dynamics and their broader societal implications. We find, among others, that users can behave very similarly (high behavioral homophily) when discussing entirely different topics like soccer vs e-sports (low topical homophily), and that there is an entire class of users on Reddit whose purpose seems to be to disagree with others.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02943 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hierarchical structure of Reddit. Reddit is divided [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Behavioral homophily inference framework for hierarchical social network data via Inverse Reinforcement Learning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The mean similarity between pairs of subreddits, with darker colors indicating greater similarity: (a) Topical (cosine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Policy persona composition of each subreddit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Spearman correlation between subreddit topic and behavioral homophily. Statistically non-significant results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Graph of user activity between subreddits on Reddit. Nodes represent home subreddits, with their size and labels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: User state visitation frequency, separated by home subreddit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: User action visitation frequency, separated by home subreddit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: ). Based on these findings, we selected 𝑘 = 5 as a compromise between the two measures. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Number of clusters (k) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 Silhouette score Silhouette score 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Absolute relative silhouette score Abs. rel. silhoue…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Silhouette score for 𝑘-means clustering. C VALIDATION Our method for measuring behavioral homophily employs maxi￾mum entropy deep inverse reinforcement learning (Deep-IRL). In Appendix C.1, we outline the hyperparameters used, followed by an analysis of the descriptive…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Dendogram of SWKL. User policies do not account for topic content, which can lead to state and action spaces that are either too sparse or too dense, making it difficult to generate unique, distinguishable policies. We validate the descriptive accuracy of inferred pol…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Mario at EXIST 2025: A Simple Gateway to Effective Multilingual Sexism Detection

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A LoRA fine-tuned Llama 3.1 8B with hierarchical adapter routing won all three text subtasks of EXIST 2025 sexism detection in English and Spanish.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Luca Maria Aiello, Alain Barrat, Rossano Schifanella, Ciro Cattuto, Benjamin Markines, and Filippo Menczer. 2012. Friendship Prediction and Homophily in Social Media. ACM Transactions on the Web 6, 2 (2012), 1–33

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Saurabh Arora and Prashant Doshi. 2021. A Survey of Inverse Reinforcement Learning: Challenges, Methods and Progress. Artificial Intelligence 297 (2021), 103500

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Jason Baumgartner, Savvas Zannettou, Brian Keegan, Megan Squire, and Jeremy Blackburn. 2020. The Pushshift Reddit Dataset. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , Vol. 14. AAAI Press, 830–839

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Steven Bird, Ewan Klein, and Edward Loper. 2009. Natural Language Processing with Python: Analyzing Text with the Natural Language Toolkit . O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol, CA

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Halil Bisgin, Nitin Agarwal, and Xiaowei Xu. 2012. A Study of Homophily on Social Media. World Wide Web 15, 2 (2012), 213–232

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Katie Bishop. 2019. What’s Causing Women to Join the NoFap Movement? Guardian (Sept 9) https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/sep/09/whats- causing-women-to-join-the-nofap-movement. (accessed 14 October 2024)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Emily Booth, Jooyoung Lee, Marian-Andrei Rizoiu, and Hany Farid. 2024. Con- spiracy, Misinformation, Radicalisation: Understanding the Online Pathway to Indoctrination and Opportunities for Intervention. Journal of Sociology 60, 2 (2024), 440–457

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    William J Brady, Julian A Wills, John T Jost, Joshua A Tucker, and Jay J Van Bavel

    work page

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Elanor Colleoni, Alessandro Rozza, and Adam Arvidsson. 2014. Echo Cham- ber or Public Sphere? Predicting Political Orientation and Measuring Political Homophily in Twitter Using Big Data. Journal of Communication 64, 2 (2014), 317–332

    2014

  2. [10]

    Sanmay Das and Allen Lavoie. 2014. The Effects of Feedback on Human Behavior in Social Media: An Inverse Reinforcement Learning Model. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems . IFAAMAS, Richland, SC, 653–660

    2014

  3. [11]

    Brittany I Davidson, Darja Wischerath, Daniel Racek, Douglas A Parry, Emily Godwin, Joanne Hinds, Dirk van der Linden, Jonathan F Roscoe, Laura Ayra- vainen, and Alicia G Cork. 2023. Platform-Controlled Social Media APIs Threaten Open Science. Nature Human Behaviour 7 (2023), ...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Corrado Monti, and Michele Starnini. 2021. No Echo in the Chambers of Political Interactions on Reddit. Scientific Reports 11 (2021), 2818

    2021

  5. [13]

    Michela Del Vicario, Gianna Vivaldo, Alessandro Bessi, Fabiana Zollo, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2016. Echo Chambers: Emo- tional Contagion and Group Polarization on Facebook. Scientific Reports 6 (2016), 37825

    2016

  6. [14]

    David Easley and Jon Kleinberg. 2010. Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World . Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY

    2010

  7. [15]

    Alexandros Efstratiou, Jeremy Blackburn, Tristan Caulfield, Gianluca Stringhini, Savvas Zannettou, and Emiliano De Cristofaro. 2023. Non-Polar Opposites: Analyzing the Relationship Between Echo Chambers and Hostile Intergroup Interactions on Reddit. In Proceedings of the Inter...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Julien Figeac and Guillaume Favre. 2023. How Behavioral Homophily on Social Media Influences the Perception of Tie-Strengthening within Young Adults’ Personal Networks. New Media & Society 25, 8 (2023), 1971–1990

    2023

  9. [17]

    Dominique Geissler and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2024. Analyzing the Strategy of Propaganda using Inverse Reinforcement Learning: Evidence from the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine. In Companion Publication of the 2024 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Com...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Maarten Grootendorst. 2022. BERTopic: Neural Topic Modeling with a Class- Based TF-IDF Procedure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05794 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2023. DeBERTaV3: Improv- ing DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharing. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations. Curran Associates, Red Hook, NY

    2023

  12. [20]

    William Hoiles, Vikram Krishnamurthy, and Kunal Pattanayak. 2020. Rationally Inattentive Inverse Reinforcement Learning Explains YouTube Commenting Behavior. Journal of Machine Learning Research 21, 170 (2020), 1–39

    2020

  13. [21]

    David Kempe, Jon Kleinberg, and Éva Tardos. 2003. Maximizing the Spread of Influence Through a Social Network. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . ACM, New York, NY, 137–146

    2003

  14. [22]

    Jason Koebler. 2016. How r/The_Donald Became a Melting Pot of Frustration and Hate. Vice (July 12) https://www.vice.com/en/article/53d5xb/what-is-rthedonald- donald-trump-subreddit. (accessed 14 October 2024)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Anastasia Kozyreva, Philipp Lorenz-Spreen, Stefan M Herzog, Ullrich KH Ecker, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ralph Hertwig, Ayesha Ali, Joe Bak-Coleman, Sarit Barzilai, Melisa Basol, et al . 2024. Toolbox of Individual-Level Interventions Against Online Misinformation. Nature Human Beha...

    2024

  16. [24]

    Kullback and R

    S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler. 1951. On Information and Sufficiency. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 22, 1 (1951), 79–86

    1951

  17. [25]

    Christine Largeron, Andrei Mardale, and Marian-Andrei Rizoiu. 2021. Linking the Dynamics of User Stance to the Structure of Online Discussions. In Advances in Intelligent Data Analysis XIX, Pedro Henriques Abreu, Pedro Pereira Rodrigues, Alberto Fernández, and João Gama (Eds.)...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton. 1954. Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis. In Freedom and Control in Modern Society. Van Nostrand, New York, NY

    1954

  19. [27]

    Luca Luceri, Silvia Giordano, and Emilio Ferrara. 2020. Detecting Troll Behavior via Inverse Reinforcement Learning: A Case Study of Russian Trolls in the 2016 US Election. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 14. AAAI Press, 417–427

    2020

  20. [28]

    Yudong Luo, Oliver Schulte, and Pascal Poupart. 2020. Inverse Reinforcement Learning for Team Sports: Valuing Actions and Players. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Christian Bessiere (Ed.). IJCAI Organization, 3356–3363

    2020

  21. [29]

    Joan Massachs, Corrado Monti, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, and Francesco Bonchi. 2020. Roots of Trumpism: Homophily and Social Feedback in Donald Trump Support on Reddit. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Web Science. ACM, New York, NY, 49–58

    2020

  22. [30]

    Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M Cook. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27 (2001), 415–444

    2001

  23. [31]

    Corrado Monti, Jacopo D’Ignazi, Michele Starnini, and Gianmarco De Fran- cisci Morales. 2023. Evidence of Demographic rather than Ideological Segregation in News Discussion on Reddit. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023 . ACM, New York, NY, 2777–2786

    2023

  24. [32]

    Ng and Stuart J

    Andrew Y. Ng and Stuart J. Russell. 2000. Algorithms for Inverse Reinforcement Learning. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 663–670

    2000

  25. [33]

    Jiaqi Pan, Rishabh Bhardwaj, Wei Lu, Hai Leong Chieu, Xinghao Pan, and Ni Yi Puay. 2019. Twitter Homophily: Network Based Prediction of User’s Occupation. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. ACL, 2633–2638

    2019

  26. [34]

    Lasse Heje Pedersen. 2022. Game On: Social Networks and Markets. Journal of Financial Economics 146, 3 (2022), 1097–1119

    2022

  27. [35]

    John Pougué-Biyong, Valentina Semenova, Alexandre Matton, Rachel Han, Aerin Kim, Renaud Lambiotte, and Doyne Farmer. 2021. DEBAGREEMENT: A Comment-Reply Dataset for (Dis)Agreement Detection in Online Debates. In Neural Information Processing Systems

    2021

  28. [36]

    Rohit Ram, Emma Thomas, David Kernot, and Marian-Andrei Rizoiu. 2025. De- tecting Extreme Ideologies in Shifting Landscapes: An Automatic & Context- Agnostic Approach. In International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media . AAAI Press

    2025

  29. [37]

    Jeffrey K Riley. 2022. Angry Enough to Riot: An Analysis of In-Group Membership, Misinformation, and Violent Rhetoric on TheDonald.win Between Election Day and Inauguration. Social Media+ Society 8, 2 (2022), 20563051221109189

    2022

  30. [38]

    Marian-Andrei Rizoiu and Julien Velcin. 2011. Ontology Learning and Knowledge Discovery Using the Web: Challenges and Recent Advances . IGI Global, Hershey, PA, Chapter Topic Extraction for Ontology Learning, 38–60

    2011

  31. [39]

    Stuart Russell. 1998. Learning Agents for Uncertain Environments (Extended Abstract). In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory. ACM, New York, NY, 101–103

    1998

  32. [40]

    Philipp J Schneider and Marian-Andrei Rizoiu. 2023. The Effectiveness of Moder- ating Harmful Online Content. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, 34 (2023), e2307360120

    2023

  33. [41]

    Semrush. 2024. Top Websites in Worldwide (All Industries). https://www.semrush.com/trending-websites/global/all. (accessed 14 October 2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Christopher A Sims. 2003. Implications of Rational Inattention. Journal of Monetary Economics 50, 3 (2003), 665–690

    2003

  35. [43]

    Kris Taylor and Sue Jackson. 2018. ‘I Want That Power Back’: Discourses of Masculinity Within an Online Pornography Abstinence Forum. Sexualities 21, 4 (2018), 621–639

    2018

  36. [44]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mari...

    2020

  37. [45]

    Markus Wulfmeier, Peter Ondruska, and Ingmar Posner. 2015. Maximum entropy deep inverse reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.04888 (2015). WWW ’25, April 28-May 2, 2025, Sydney, NSW, Australia Yuan et al

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Changxi You, Jianbo Lu, Dimitar Filev, and Panagiotis Tsiotras. 2019. Advanced Planning for Autonomous Vehicles Using Reinforcement Learning and Deep Inverse Reinforcement Learning. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 114 (2019), 1–18

    2019

  39. [47]

    microsoft/deberta-v3-base

    Brian D Ziebart, Andrew L Maas, J Andrew Bagnell, Anind K Dey, et al . 2008. Maximum Entropy Inverse Reinforcement Learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 8. AAAI Press, 1433–1438. A DATASET In Section 3, we provided a brief overview of...

    2008

  40. [2017]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 28 (2017), 7313–7318

    Emotion Shapes the Diffusion of Moralized Content in Social Networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 28 (2017), 7313–7318

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.