Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Identifying consumers’ arguments in text swaie at ekaw 2012 10-09

934 views

Published on

A talk for SWAIE2012 at EKAW2012 http://semanticweb.cs.vu.nl/swaie2012/

Paper at http://jodischneider.com/pubs/swaie2012.pdf

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Identifying consumers’ arguments in text swaie at ekaw 2012 10-09

  1. 1. Identifying Consumers’ Arguments in Text Jodi Schneider1 and Adam Wyner21 - Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway 2 – Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool Tuesday October 9, 2012 SWAIE 2012 (colocated with EKAW 2012) at National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland
  2. 2. Outline• Motivation & Goals• Our Approach – Provide a Semi-Automated Support Tool – Use Argumentation Schemes – Use Information Extraction• Example ResultsOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 2
  3. 3. Reviews are rich & detailedOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 3
  4. 4. Customers disagree, especially in commentsOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 4
  5. 5. Customer Questions• What’s controversial?• What are some reasons to buy the item? Not to buy it?• What sorts of people participate in the discussion?• Are there authorities who can help me decide what to buy?• Are there people similar to me who like this item? And why? …Similar people who dislike it? Why?• What opinions are given about features of the item?October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 5
  6. 6. Manufacturer Questions• What features are controversial?• What market segments report positive (negative) experiences?• What else are customers talking about? May reveal other customer needs. – Advice – Competitor’s products – Related products to be used in conjunction? October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 6
  7. 7. Limited StructureOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 7
  8. 8. Goal: A knowledge base we can query• Who likes this camera?• What statements are made about particular camera features? e.g. indoor picture quality• Which claims do they support? e.g. Do they support the claim that “the camera gives quality indoor pictures”? Or the opposite claim? October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 8
  9. 9. Our approach• Build a support tool – semi-automated – rule-based – using text analytics• Use argumentation schemes – patterns for reasoning – identify text mining targets for info extraction October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 9
  10. 10. Simple Reasoning PatternPremises:• The Canon SX220 has good video quality.• Good video quality promotes image quality for casual photographers.Conclusion:• Casual photographers should buy the Canon SX220.October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 10
  11. 11. Argumentation SchemePremises:• The <camera> has <feature>.• <feature> promotes <user value> for <user class>.Conclusion:• <user class> should <e-commerce action> the <camera>.<e-commerce action>: buy, not buy, sell, return, …October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 11
  12. 12. Variables as Targets for Information Extraction<camera><property><user value><user type><e-commerce action>October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 12
  13. 13. 4 Argumentation Schemes in the Paper1. User Classification2. Camera Classification3. Appropriateness4. Consumer RelativisedOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 13
  14. 14. Building more complex reasoning patterns • “Cascade” of argumentation schemes • Conclusions of one scheme as premises for anotherOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 14
  15. 15. Consumer Relativised Argumentation Scheme 3 Premises: 1. User Class (Conclusion of User Classification AS) 2. Camera Class (Conclusion of Camera Classification AS) 3. Appropriateness (Conclusion of Appropriateness AS) Conclusion: User should buy CameraOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 15
  16. 16. Consumer Relativised Argumentation Scheme Premises: 1. Cameras of class Y are appropriate for agents of class X. 2. Camera y is of class Y. 3. Agent x is of class X. Conclusion: Agent x should buy camera y.October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 16
  17. 17. Appropriateness Argumentation SchemeOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 17
  18. 18. Appropriateness Argumentation Scheme Premises: 1. Agent x is in user class X. 2. Camera y is in camera class Y. 3. The camera’s contexts of use satisfy the user’s context of use. 4. The camera’s available features satisfy the user’s desirable features. 5. The camera’s quality expectations satisfy the user’s quality expectations. Conclusion: Cameras of class Y are appropriate for agents of class X.October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 18
  19. 19. Premises become Information Extraction TargetsPremises of the Appropriateness AS:1. Agent x is in user class X.2. Camera y is in camera class Y.3. The camera’s contexts of use satisfy the user’s context of use.4. The camera’s available features satisfy the user’s desirable features.5. The camera’s quality expectations satisfy the user’s quality expectationsOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 19
  20. 20. Information Extraction 1. User class 2. (Camera class) 3. Contexts of use: camera’s, user’s 4. Features: camera’s available, user’s desirable 5. Quality expectations: camera’s, user’sOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 20
  21. 21. Query for patternsOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 21
  22. 22. Amazing low light photosOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 22
  23. 23. Mainly bright colours in good daylightOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 23
  24. 24. Arguments are User Relative• Amazing low light photos?• Only for bright colours in good daylight?•  Motivates the user classificationOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 24
  25. 25. Future work: argumentation schemes• Further instantiate the schemes using the tool – Where do they work well? – Improvements needed?• Develop additional schemes – Expertise – Comparison – Particular features (e.g. warranties)October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 25
  26. 26. Future work: ontologies & concepts• Ontologies and reasoning – Ontology for users – Ontology for cameras – Test inferences by importing scheme instances into an argumentation inference engine.• Address conceptual issues – Clarify distinctions between the camera’s quality expectations and features – Support matches between a user’s values and camera propertiesOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 26
  27. 27. Future work: evaluation• Evaluate the tool – How well does it support users? (faster, better analyses?) – Do annotation types match users’ expectations? (interannotator agreement)October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 27
  28. 28. Related Papers• Talk at EKAW, Thursday 11:45: “Dimensions of argumentation in social media” Schneider, Davis, and Wyner (EKAW 2012).• Wyner, Schneider, Atkinson, and Bench-Capon. “Semi-Automated Argumentative Analysis of Online Product Reviews.” In 4th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA 2012).• Wyner and Schneider (2012). Arguing from a point of view, Agreement Technologies.October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 28
  29. 29. 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 TechnologiesOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 29
  30. 30. Thanks for your attention!• Questions?• Contacts: – Jodi Schneider jodi.schneider@deri.org – Adam Wyner adam@wyner.infoOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 30
  31. 31. October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 31
  32. 32. 4 Argumentation Schemes in the Paper1. User Classification AS2. Camera Classification AS3. Appropriateness AS Concludes: Camera Class is appropriate for User Class Premises: User Class, Camera Class, User & Camera Match • Match on: Contexts of Use, Features, Quality Expectations4. Consumer Relativised AS Concludes: User should buy Camera Premises: User Class, Camera Class, AppropriatenessOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 32
  33. 33. Domain terminologyOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 33
  34. 34. Find camera features• Use : – Has a flash – Number of megapixels – Scope of the zoom – Lens size – The warrantyOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 34
  35. 35. Find argument passages after, as, because, for, since, when, ....• C therefore, in conclusion, consequently, ....October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 35
  36. 36. Argument indicators: Premise & ConclusionOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 36
  37. 37. To find attacks between arguments• Use contrast terminology: – Indicators but, except, not, never, no, .... – Contrasting sentiment The flash worked . The flash worked .October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 37
  38. 38. Sentiment terminologyOctober 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 38
  39. 39. , ,October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 39
  40. 40. User Classification argumentation scheme Variables are our targets for extraction. Premises: Agent x… 1. … has user’s attributes aP1; aP2; … 2. … user’s context of use aU1; aU2; … 3. … has user’s desirable camera features aF1; aF2; ... 4. … has user’s quality expectations aQ1; aQ2; ... 5. … has user’s values aV1; aV2; ... 6. …has desirable camera features aF1; aF2; … promote/demote user’s values aV1; aV2; ... Conclusion: Agent x is in class X.October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 40
  41. 41. 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 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 41
  42. 42. 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 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 42
  43. 43. 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 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 43
  44. 44. Making sense of reviews• Do other reviews agree? – Any counterarguments?• Is this point relevant to me? – Does this reviewer have similar needs? – Does it apply in my situation?• Is enough information provided? – Any explanations? – Any examples? October 9, 2012 Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 44

×