Arguing from a Point of View

Download Arguing from a Point of View

Post on 29-Jun-2015

340 views

Category:

Documents

4 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

A presentation at the Agreement Technologies Conference in Dubrovnik, Croatia on October 16. The problem that is addressed in the talk is how to structure information extraction from web-based sources, e.g. website comments, in a structured way that supports analysis of the interconnected argumentative content. The slides have some examples of how this can be done. Related work can be found on my blog

TRANSCRIPT

  • 1. Arguing from a Point of View Adam Wyner1 and Jodi Schneider2 1 - Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool2 Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of IrelandFirst International Conference on Agreement Technologies Centre for Advanced Academic Studies, University of Zagreb Dubrovnik, Croatia October 16, 2012

2. Overview Hotel reviews are a source of arguments. Point of view is needed to evaluate arguments such as The hotel is in an excellent location. Therefore we relativise evaluative statements basedon point of view. The key point: evaluative statements can be justifiedusing instantiated argumentation schemes relative toa user and a domain model.October 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 1 3. Hotel use caseOctober 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 2 4. Positive reviewsOctober 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 3 5. Negative reviewsOctober 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 4 6. TMI How much bad spoils what amount of good? How do the scores relate to the content? How does thecontent justify or argue for the score given? How do the comments relate to one another? Linear text &lists of comments arent rich enough: Elaborate network ofpoint and counterpoint.October 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 5 7. Its all about YOU!People dont just want informationThey want information that is relevant to them appeals to them sees things from their point of view.October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 6 8. Goal To support relativised argumentation derived fromdistributed, inconsistent information.October 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 20127 9. Evaluative expressions use case- client and travel agent -Im going to a conference in venue X in Valencia and need a hotelroom.BillHotel Valencia is in an excellent location.Travel agentWhy do you say it is an excellent location?The hotel is a kilometer from the venue X. And the hotel is in theold part of the city.OK, please book it.October 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 8 10. Evaluative expressions use case - client and travel agent - Im going to a conference in venue X in Valencia and need a hotel room.Jill Hotel Valencia is in an excellent location. Why do you say it is an excellent location? The hotel is a kilometer from the venue X. And the hotel is in the old part of the city. But it is a noisy and trashy old part. And it is too far. Please find me something else. October 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 9 11. Argument evaluation is user-relative Bill & Jill receive the same argument from the travelagent but evaluate it differently. Given the premises The hotel is a kilometer from the venue X. And thehotel is in the old part of the city. Bill has accepted the claim Hotel Valencia is in an excellent location.Given the same premises, Jill has not accepted the claim (and doesnt even agree with all thepremises). Different ways to argue for and against the same claim.October 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 201210 12. Approach Argumentation schemes are key Normative patterns of defeasible reasoning. Variables can be seen as targets for informationextraction. Could use text analysis to instantiate. Evaluate instantiated arguments usingargumentation frameworks. Relativise the instantiated arguments to auser.October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 11 13. Argumentation Schemes Overview Example scheme from the literature Crediblesource: Instantiated Abstract Questions used to critique the argument Two new schemes for our use case Evaluation of location Evaluation of qualityOctober 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 12 14. Argumentation scheme example- instantiated - Normative patterns of defeasible reasoning: Dr. Rose is an expert about road safety; Dr. Rose asserts that having more speed cameras will save more lives; Having more speed cameras will save lives is a statement concerning road safety; Dr. Rose is credible about road safety; and Dr. Rose is reliable; Therefore, it is presumably true that having more speed cameras will save more lives.October 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 13 15. Argumentation scheme example - abstracted - Normative patterns of defeasible reasoning: X is an expert about Y; X asserts Z; Z is a statement concerning Y; X is credible about Y; and X is reliable; therefore, it is presumably true that Z.October 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 14 16. Argumentation scheme example- critique - Questions used to critique the argument: How credible is X as an expert source? Is the claim about Z consistent with what other experts assert? Is Xs assertion based on evidence? Others....October 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 15 17. Use case elements New argumentation schemes: Evaluation of location. Evaluation of quality. Instantiate schemes relative to a user model. Domain and evaluative terminology. User model selection from domain terminology plussome terminology for parameters, context ofuse, constraints....October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 16 18. User Information In this paper, we represent user models by terminology and instantiated schemes. In other work, we add these components.October 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 201217 19. Evaluation of location arg. scheme- abstract -October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 18 20. Evaluation of location arg. scheme - Instantiating for Bill & Jill -October 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 19 21. Evaluation of quality arg. scheme-abstract-October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 20 22. Evaluation of quality arg. scheme-Instantiating for Bill-October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 21 23. Instantiating for JillOctober 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 22 24. Use case elements Argumentation schemes: Evaluation of location. Evaluation of quality. Instantiate schemes relative to a user model. Domain and evaluative terminology. User model selection from terminology andinstantiated schemes.October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 23 25. Domain and evaluative terminologyOctober 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 24 26. User-associated inference If the instantiations of both argumentation schemesare acceptable to the user, then the user has ajustification to book the hotel. For us, the model of the user can be given in terms ofa logical language the terminology and theschemes instantiated with that terminology. Arguing about the instantiations, e.g. Jills criticism ofthe travel agents proposition, is a meta-argumentabout the contents of the user model.October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 25 27. Argumentation frameworks & text analysis This paper is part of a larger work on the argumentationpipeline, from textual source to abstract argumentation. Introduces new schemes and instantiates them relativeto a user. Other parts: We have a text analytic tool (GATE) to support the extraction of relevant information from the source. We have a proposal for integrating this with argumentation frameworks.October 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 26 28. Argumentation pipelineSource Text Instantiated Abstract ArgumentationNo fresh orange juice atArgumentation Schemes Frameworksbreakfast and besides terriblefilter coffee extra payment forcappuchino etc... No wifi in therooms (says so indescription, but still...). AS1: .... Relate Extract text schemes toVery impressive hotel with to schemesarguments.stunning views. Staff wereattentive - especially the bellboys. 5 min bus journey to theAS2: ....old town or 15 min walk. Theroom was very comfortable.If u want to stay with comfort Iwould never recommend thishotel on arrival I was waitingAS3: ....my room from 14.00 till16.00, but again they gave me aroom with two separate bedsignoring my comments in thebooking (one king bed and bigbathtube) October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 27 29. Consumer argumentation scheme Variables in schemes as targets for extraction. Premises: Camera X has property P. Property P promotes value V for agent A. Conclusion: Agent A should Action Camera X.October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 28 30. Identifying and extracting text Annotate text: Simple or complex annotations. Highlight annotations with Search for and extract text by annotation. GATE General Architecture for Text Engineering. Works with large corpora of text. Rule-based or machine-learning approaches. October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 29 31. ,,October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 30 32. Query for patternsOctober 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 31 33. An argument for buying the cameraPremises: The pictures are perfectly exposed. The pictures are well-focused. No camera shake. Good video quality. Each of these properties promotes image quality.Conclusion:(You, the reader,) should buy the CanonSX220.October 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 32 34. An argument for NOT buying the cameraPremises: The colour is poor when using the flash. The images are not crisp when using the flash. The flash causes a shadow. Each of these properties demotes image quality.Conclusion:(You, the reader,) should not buy the CanonSX220.October 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 33 35. Counterarguments to the premises of Dont buy The colour is poor when using the flash. For good colour, use the colour setting, not the flash. The images are not crisp when using the flash. No need to use flash even in low light. The flash causes a shadow. There is a corrective video about the flash shadow.October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 201234 36. Argumentation Frameworks , where arguments are atomic nodes and the relation is attack. Calculate the sets of nodes that are compatible. Articulate nodes with a logical language of literals and rules, where attack is contrariness betweenPreferred Extension of the AF. expressions of the language.October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 201235 37. Future workUser model formalisation and meta-argumentation.Text analysis for this set of data.Tool refinement.Add ontology modules to the tool.Multi-critierial argumentation properties ascribed to the argument vs. premises of the argument.October 16, 2012Wyner and Schneider, AT 201236 38. Related Papers Wyner, van Engers, and Hunter (2010). "Working on the ArgumentPipeline: Through Flow Issues between Natural LanguageArgument, Instantiated Arguments, and ArgumentationFrameworks", Workshop on Computational Models of NaturalArgument (CMNA). Wyner, Schneider, Atkinson, and Bench-Capon (2012). Semi-automated argumentation analysis of online productreviews, Conference on Computational Models of Argument(COMMA). Schneider and Wyner (2012). Identifying consumers arguments intext, Workshop on Semantic Web and Information Extraction(SWAIE at EKAW). Schneider, Davis, and Wyner (2012). Dimensions of argumentationin social media, Conference on Knowledge Engineering andKnowledge Management (EKAW).October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 37 39. Acknowledgements FP7-ICT-2009-4 Programme, IMPACT Project, Grant Agreement Number 247228. Science Foundation Ireland Grant No. SFI/08/CE/I1380 (Lon- 2). Short-term Scientic Mission grant from COST Action IC0801 on Agreement Technologies. SFI Short Term Travel Fellowship.October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 201238 40. Thanks for your attention! Questions? Contacts: Adam Wyner adam@wyner.info Jodi Schneider jschneider@pobox.comOctober 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 39

Recommended

View more >