1 / 32

Identifying Arguments for Evaluation using an Argument Explorer

Identifying Arguments for Evaluation using an Argument Explorer. Jodi Schneider 1 , Adam Wyner 2 , Katie Atkinson 2 , Trevor Bench-Capon 2 1 Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland 2 Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool April 20, 2012

bryant
Download Presentation

Identifying Arguments for Evaluation using an Argument Explorer

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Identifying Arguments for Evaluation using an Argument Explorer Jodi Schneider1, Adam Wyner2, Katie Atkinson2, Trevor Bench-Capon2 1Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland 2Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool April 20, 2012 London Argumentation Forum

  2. Argumentation is everywhere! London Argumentation Forum

  3. Argumentation is everywhere! London Argumentation Forum

  4. Argumentation is everywhere! London Argumentation Forum

  5. Identifying arguments is hard. London Argumentation Forum

  6. Goals • Extract arguments from source texts so they can be evaluated with formal automated tools • Speed the work of human analysts • Make argument identification more objective London Argumentation Forum

  7. Strategy & Issues • Decompose the complexity of a text • What are the parts of an argument? • What kind of domain knowledge do we need? • How are the parts of the argument related? • What are the contrasts and negations from which we can derive attack relationships? London Argumentation Forum

  8. Use case: Which camera should I buy? London Argumentation Forum

  9. Value-based Practical Reasoning Argumentation Scheme Premises: Before doing action A, the current circumstances are R; After doing action A, the new circumstances are S; G is a goal of the agent Ag, where S implies G; Doing action A in R and achieving G promotes value V; Conclusion: We should perform action A. London Argumentation Forum

  10. Consumer Argumentation Scheme Premises: Camera X has property P. Property P promotes value V for agent A. Conclusion: Agent A should Action1 Camera X. London Argumentation Forum

  11. Critical Questions • Does Camera X have property P? • Does property P promote value V for agent A? • Is value V more important than value V’ for agent A? London Argumentation Forum

  12. Analyst’s goal: instantiate Premises: The Canon SX220 has good video quality. Good video quality promotes image quality for casual photographers. Conclusion: Casual photographers should buy the Canon SX220. London Argumentation Forum

  13. … starting from this London Argumentation Forum

  14. Highlight parts of the argument • Does Camera X have property P? • Does property P promote value V for agent A? • Is value V more important than value V’ for agent A? London Argumentation Forum

  15. Highlight parts of the argument • Argumentative indicators • Property – with camera terminology • Value for agent –with sentiment, user models • Value V more important– with comparisons London Argumentation Forum

  16. Implementing with a Text Analysis Tool • GATE “General Architecture for Text Engineering” • Environment for text analysis • Adds annotation to text • Highlight annotations with colours • Search for annotations • Can work with large corpora of text • Coarse or fine-grained annotations London Argumentation Forum

  17. Help analysts find relevant passages • Indicators of premise after, as, because, for, since, when, .... • Indicators of conclusion therefore, in conclusion, consequently, .... • Indicators of contrast but, except, not, never, no, .... London Argumentation Forum

  18. Rhetorical terminology London Argumentation Forum

  19. Domain terminology • Has a flash • Number of megapixels • Scope of the zoom • Lens size • The warranty London Argumentation Forum

  20. Domain terminology London Argumentation Forum

  21. Sentiment terminology • The flash worked poorly • The flash worked flawlessly London Argumentation Forum

  22. Sentiment terminology London Argumentation Forum

  23. Agents: User Models • User’s parametersAge, gender, education, previous camera experience, .... • User’s context of useParty, indoors, sport, travel, desired output format, .... • User’s constraintsCost, portability, size, richness or flexibility of features, .... • User’s quality expectations Colourquality, information density, reliability, .... London Argumentation Forum

  24. Instantiating the CAS Premises: The Canon SX220 camera has property P. Property P promotes value V for agent A. Conclusion: Agent A should buy the Canon SX220. London Argumentation Forum

  25. Domain properties, positive sentiment, premises London Argumentation Forum

  26. Query for patterns London Argumentation Forum

  27. 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. London Argumentation Forum

  28. 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 propertiesdemotesimage quality. Conclusion: (You, the reader,) shouldNOT buy the CanonSX220. London Argumentation Forum

  29. 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. London Argumentation Forum

  30. Future Work • Tool refinement • Add terminology modules to the tool • User models – how do they play a role • More complicated query patterns, what results do we get? • More elaborate examples • Disambiguation issues for rhetorical terminology – must deal with it step-by-step, what are the indicators we can use to disambiguate London Argumentation Forum

  31. Thanks to our funders! • FP7-ICT-2009-4 Programme, IMPACT Project,Grant Agreement Number 247228. • Science Foundation IrelandGrant No. SFI/08/CE/I1380 (Líon-2) • COST Action ICO801 on Agreement TechnologiesShort-term scientific mission (STSM 1868) • Upcoming: SFI Travel Supplement

  32. Thanks for your attention! • Questions? • Contacts: • Jodi Schneider jodi.schneider@deri.org • Adam Wyner azwyner@liverpool.ac.uk • Katie Atkinson katie@liverpool.ac.uk • Trevor Bench-Capon tbc@liverpool.ac.uk London Argumentation Forum

More Related