1. 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 London Argumentation Forum

2. Argumentation is everywhere! April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

3. Argumentation is everywhere! April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

4. Argumentation is everywhere! April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

5. Identifying arguments is hard. April 20, 2012London 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 April 20, 2012London 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? April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

8. Use case: Which camera should I buy? April 20, 2012London 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. April 20, 2012London 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. April 20, 2012London 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? April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

12. Analysts 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. April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

13. … starting from this April 20, 2012London 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? April 20, 2012London 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 April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

16. Implementing with a Text Analysis Tool April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

17. Help analysts find relevant passages April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

18. Rhetorical terminology April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

19. Domain terminology Has a flash Number of megapixels Scope of the zoom Lens size The warranty April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

20. Domain terminology April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

21. Sentiment terminology April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

22. Sentiment terminology April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

23. Agents: User Models Users parameters Age, gender, education, previous camera experience,.... Users context of use Party, indoors, sport, travel, desired output format,.... Users constraints Cost, portability, size, richness or flexibility of features,.... Users quality expectations Colour quality, information density, reliability,.... April 20, 2012London 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. April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

25. April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

26. Query for patterns April 20, 2012London 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. April 20, 2012London 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 properties demotes image quality. Conclusion: (You, the reader,) should NOT buy the CanonSX220. April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

29. Counterarguments to the premises of Dont 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. April 20, 2012London 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 April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum

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

32. Thanks for your attention! Questions? Contacts: –Jodi Schneiderjodi.schneider@deri.org –Adam Wynerazwyner@liverpool.ac.uk –Katie Atkinson katie@liverpool.ac.uk –Trevor Bench-Capontbc@liverpool.ac.uk April 20, 2012London Argumentation Forum