Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Arguing from a Point of View
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Arguing from a Point of View

326

Published on

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 …

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

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
326
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Tuesday, October 16, 2012
  • This doesn’t mentionextracting arguments from source text
  • For or against the hotel? Or the hotel RATING?
  • Not sure if “Different ways to argue for and against the same claim.” is what we want…Isn’t it really that there are Different ways to EVALUATE ARGUMENTS for and against the same claim?
  • Any hotel domain example that would be easy here?Why not just spend more time on one of our examples? I think that would make sense….
  • Might focus just on this paper here
  • Not sure why you call this co-variance
  • Haven’t shown the pipeline up till now – is “middle” clear enough? Maybe this is what you say when you’re showing the pipeline? Not sure if this slide is essential then.
  • Pipeline picture – linear text, schemes, argument reconstruction, abstract evaluation.
  • Colors represent annotations in the text. We can then search for a large body of text
  • Leave camera implicit in the examples for brevity.
  • We have an argument for buying the camera, an argument for not buying the camera. They rebut each other.We have attacks on the premises for “don’t buy the camera”. The argument for not buying the camera is defeated; the argument for buying the camera stands. So you should buy the camera.
  • Any future work specific to this?
  • 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 Ireland First 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 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.October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 1
    • 3. Hotel use caseOctober 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 2
    • 4. Positive reviewsOctober 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 3
    • 5. Negative reviewsOctober 16, 2012 Wyner 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 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.October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 5
    • 7. Its all about YOU!People dont just want “information”They 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 from distributed, inconsistent information.October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 7
    • 9. Evaluative expressions use case - client and travel agent - Im going to a conference in venue X in Valencia and need a hotel room. Bill Hotel Valencia is in an excellent location.Travel agent 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. October 16, 2012 Wyner 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, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 9
    • 11. Argument evaluation is user-relative• 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 doesnt even agree with all the premises).• Different ways to argue for and against the same claim.October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 10
    • 12. Approach• 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.October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 11
    • 13. Argumentation Schemes Overview• 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”October 16, 2012 Wyner 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, 2012 Wyner 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, 2012 Wyner 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 X’s assertion based on evidence? – Others....October 16, 2012 Wyner 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 plus some terminology for parameters, context of use, 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, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 17
    • 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, 2012 Wyner 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, 2012 Wyner 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 and instantiated 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 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. Jills criticism of the travel agents proposition, is a meta-argument about 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 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.October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 26
    • 28. Argumentation pipeline Source Text Instantiated Abstract ArgumentationNo fresh orange juice at Argumentation 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 schemes arguments.stunning views. Staff wereattentive - especially the bellboys. 5 min bus journey to the AS2: ....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 waiting AS3: ....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, 2012 Wyner 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, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 33
    • 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 34
    • 36. Argumentation Frameworks • <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 Preferred Extension of the AF. expressions of the language.October 16, 2012 Wyner and Schneider, AT 2012 35
    • 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 36
    • 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 37
    • 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 38
    • 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

    ×