arguing from a point of view
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 blogTRANSCRIPT
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 Ireland
First International Conference on Agreement TechnologiesCentre for Advanced Academic Studies, University of Zagreb
Dubrovnik, Croatia
October 16, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 2
Overview
October 16, 2012
• 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 based on point of view.
• The key point: evaluative statements can be justified using instantiated argumentation schemes relative to a user and a domain model.
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 3
Hotel use case
October 16, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 4
Positive reviews
October 16, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 5
Negative reviews
October 16, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 6
TMI
October 16, 2012
• How much 'bad' spoils what amount of 'good'?• How do the scores relate to the content? How does the
content justify or argue for the score given?• How do the comments relate to one another? Linear text &
lists of comments aren’t rich enough: Elaborate network of point and counterpoint.
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 7
It's all about YOU!
October 16, 2012
People don't just want “information”They want information that is • relevant to them• appeals to them• sees things from their point of view.
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 8
Goal
October 16, 2012
• To support relativised argumentation derived from distributed, inconsistent information.
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 9
Evaluative expressions use case- client and travel agent -
October 16, 2012
I'm going to a conference in venue X in Valencia and need a hotel room.
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.
OK, please book it.
Bill
Travel agent
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 10
Evaluative expressions use case- client and travel agent -
October 16, 2012
I'm going to a conference in venue X in Valencia and need a hotel room.
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.
Jill
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 11
Argument evaluation is user-relative
October 16, 2012
• Bill & Jill receive the same argument from the travel agent but evaluate it differently.
• Given the premises– The hotel is a kilometer from the venue X. And the hotel
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 doesn't even agree with all the premises).
• Different ways to argue for and against the same claim.
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 12
Approach
October 16, 2012
• Argumentation schemes are key– Normative patterns of defeasible reasoning.– Variables can be seen as targets for information
extraction. Could use text analysis to instantiate.– Evaluate instantiated arguments using
argumentation frameworks.• Relativise the instantiated arguments to a
user.
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 13
Argumentation Schemes Overview
October 16, 2012
• Example scheme from the literature “Credible source”:– Instantiated– Abstract– Questions used to critique the argument
• Two new schemes for our use case– “Evaluation of location”– “Evaluation of quality”
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 14
Argumentation scheme example - instantiated -
October 16, 2012
• 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.
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 15
Argumentation scheme example - abstracted -
October 16, 2012
• 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.
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 16
Argumentation scheme example- critique -
October 16, 2012
• 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 X’s assertion based on evidence?– Others....
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 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 plus
some terminology for parameters, context of use, constraints....
October 16, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 18
User Information
October 16, 2012
In this paper, we represent user models by terminology andinstantiated schemes.
In other work, we add these components.
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 19
“Evaluation of location” arg. scheme- abstract -
October 16, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 20
“Evaluation of location” arg. scheme- Instantiating for Bill & Jill -
October 16, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 21
“Evaluation of quality” arg. scheme-abstract-
October 16, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 22
“Evaluation of quality” arg. scheme-Instantiating for Bill-
October 16, 2012
23
Instantiating for Jill
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012October 16, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 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 and
instantiated schemes.
October 16, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 25
Domain and evaluative terminology
October 16, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 26
User-associated inference
October 16, 2012
• If the instantiations of both argumentation schemes are acceptable to the user, then the user has a justification to book the hotel.
• For us, the model of the user can be given in terms of a logical language – the terminology and the schemes instantiated with that terminology.
• Arguing about the instantiations, e.g. Jill's criticism of the travel agent's proposition, is a meta-argument about the contents of the user model.
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 27
Argumentation frameworks & text analysis
October 16, 2012
• This paper is part of a larger work on the argumentation pipeline, from textual source to abstract argumentation.
• Introduces new schemes and instantiates them relative to 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.
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 28
Argumentation pipeline
October 16, 2012
Source Text
No fresh orange juice at breakfast and besides terrible filter coffee extra payment for cappuchino etc... No wifi in the rooms (says so in description, but still...).
Very impressive hotel with stunning views. Staff were attentive - especially the bell boys. 5 min bus journey to the old town or 15 min walk. The room was very comfortable.
If u want to stay with comfort I would never recommend this hotel on arrival I was waiting my room from 14.00 till 16.00, but again they gave me a room with two separate beds ignoring my comments in the booking (one king bed and big bathtube)
Instantiated Argumentation Schemes
AS1: ....
AS2: ....
AS3: ....
Extract text to schemes
Relate schemes to arguments.
Abstract Argumentation Frameworks
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 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 30
Identifying and extracting text
• Annotate text:– Simple or complex annotations.– Highlight annotations with colours.– 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 31
Domain properties, positive sentiment,
premises
October 16, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 32
Query for patterns
October 16, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 33
An argument for buying the camera
Premises: 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, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 34
An argument for NOT buying the camera
Premises: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, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 35
Counterarguments to the premises of “Don’t 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 2012 36
Argumentation Frameworks
October 16, 2012
Preferred Extension of the AF.
• <Arguments, Relation>, 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 between expressions of the language.
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 37
Future work
• User 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, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 38
Related Papers
• Wyner, van Engers, and Hunter (2010). "Working on the Argument Pipeline: Through Flow Issues between Natural Language Argument, Instantiated Arguments, and Argumentation Frameworks", Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA).
• Wyner, Schneider, Atkinson, and Bench-Capon (2012). ''Semi-automated argumentation analysis of online product reviews'', Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA).
• Schneider and Wyner (2012). ''Identifying consumers' arguments in text'', Workshop on Semantic Web and Information Extraction (SWAIE at EKAW).
• Schneider, Davis, and Wyner (2012). ''Dimensions of argumentation in social media'', Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW).
October 16, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 39
Acknowledgements
• FP7-ICT-2009-4 Programme, IMPACT Project, Grant Agreement Number 247228.
• Science Foundation Ireland Grant No. SFI/08/CE/I1380 (Líon-2). Short-term Scientific Mission grant from COST Action IC0801 on Agreement Technologies. SFI Short Term Travel Fellowship.
October 16, 2012
Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 40
Thanks for your attention!
• Questions?• Contacts:
– Adam Wyner [email protected]– Jodi Schneider [email protected]
October 16, 2012