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

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


Reviews are rich & detailed

October 9, 2012


Customers disagree, especially in comments

October 9, 2012


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?


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?


Limited Structure

October 9, 2012


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?


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


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


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


Variables as Targets for Information Extraction

<camera><property><user value><user type><e-commerce action>

October 9, 2012


4 Argumentation Schemes in the Paper

October 9, 2012

1. User Classification2. Camera Classification3. Appropriateness4. Consumer Relativised


Building more complex reasoning patterns

• “Cascade” of argumentation schemes• Conclusions of one scheme as premises for another

October 9, 2012


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


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


Appropriateness Argumentation Scheme

October 9, 2012


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


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


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


Query for patterns

October 9, 2012


Amazing low light photos

October 9, 2012


Mainly bright colours in good daylight

October 9, 2012


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


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


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


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


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


Domain terminology

October 9, 2012


Find camera features

• Use domain terminology:– Has a flash– Number of megapixels– Scope of the zoom– Lens size– The warranty

October 9, 2012


Find argument passages

• Premise Indicators after, as, because, for, since, when, .... • Conclusion Indicators therefore, in conclusion, consequently, ....

October 9, 2012


Argument indicators: Premise & Conclusion

October 9, 2012


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


Sentiment terminology

October 9, 2012


Domain properties, positive sentiment,

premises

October 9, 2012


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


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


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


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


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?

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

Technology

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