Upload
jodischneider
View
503
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A talk for SWAIE2012 at EKAW2012 http://semanticweb.cs.vu.nl/swaie2012/ Paper at http://jodischneider.com/pubs/swaie2012.pdf
Citation preview
Identifying Consumers’ Arguments in Text
Jodi Schneider1 and Adam Wyner2
1 - Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway2 – Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool
Tuesday October 9, 2012SWAIE 2012 (colocated with EKAW 2012)
at National University of IrelandGalway, Ireland
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 2
Outline
October 9, 2012
• Motivation & Goals• Our Approach
– Provide a Semi-Automated Support Tool– Use Argumentation Schemes– Use Information Extraction
• Example Results
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 3
Reviews are rich & detailed
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 4
Customers disagree, especially in comments
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 5
Customer Questions
October 9, 2012
• 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?
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 6
Manufacturer Questions
October 9, 2012
• 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?
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 7
Limited Structure
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 8
Goal: A knowledge base we can query
October 9, 2012
• 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?
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 9
Our approach
October 9, 2012
• Build a support tool– semi-automated– rule-based– using text analytics
• Use argumentation schemes– patterns for reasoning– identify text mining targets for info extraction
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 10
Simple Reasoning Pattern
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.
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 11
Argumentation Scheme
Premises: • 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 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 13
4 Argumentation Schemes in the Paper
October 9, 2012
1. User Classification2. Camera Classification3. Appropriateness4. Consumer Relativised
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 14
Building more complex reasoning patterns
• “Cascade” of argumentation schemes• Conclusions of one scheme as premises for another
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 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 Camera
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 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 17
Appropriateness Argumentation Scheme
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 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 19
Premises become Information Extraction Targets
October 9, 2012
Premises 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 expectations
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 20
Information Extraction
1. User class2. (Camera class)3. Contexts of use: camera’s, user’s4. Features: camera’s available, user’s desirable5. Quality expectations: camera’s, user’s
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 21
Query for patterns
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 22
Amazing low light photos
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 23
Mainly bright colours in good daylight
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 24
Arguments are User Relative
• Amazing low light photos?• Only for bright colours in good daylight?
• Motivates the user classification
October 9, 2012
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
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
properties
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012October 9, 2012
27
Future work: evaluation• Evaluate the tool
– How well does it support users? (faster, better analyses?)– Do annotation types match users’ expectations?
(interannotator agreement)
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 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 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 Technologies
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 30
Thanks for your attention!
• Questions?• Contacts:
– Jodi Schneider [email protected]– Adam Wyner [email protected]
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 31October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 32
4 Argumentation Schemes in the Paper
October 9, 2012
1. User Classification AS2. Camera Classification AS3. Appropriateness AS
Concludes: Camera Class is appropriate for User ClassPremises: User Class, Camera Class, User & Camera Match
• Match on: Contexts of Use, Features, Quality Expectations
4. Consumer Relativised ASConcludes: User should buy CameraPremises: User Class, Camera Class, Appropriateness
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 33
Domain terminology
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 34
Find camera features
• Use domain terminology:– Has a flash– Number of megapixels– Scope of the zoom– Lens size– The warranty
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 35
Find argument passages
• Premise Indicators after, as, because, for, since, when, .... • Conclusion Indicators therefore, in conclusion, consequently, ....
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 36
Argument indicators: Premise & Conclusion
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 37
To find attacks between arguments
• Use contrast terminology:– Indicators but, except, not, never, no, ....– Contrasting sentiment The flash worked poorly. The flash worked flawlessly.
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 38
Sentiment terminology
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 39
Domain properties, positive sentiment,
premises
October 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 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 41
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 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 42
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 9, 2012
Schneider & Wyner, SWAIE at EKAW 2012 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 44
Making sense of reviews
October 9, 2012
• 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?