Web-Retrieval Supported Argument Space Exploration

ABSTRACT

Solid decision making should be ideally based on clear arguments that can be justified by trustworthy information sources. However, argument spaces can quickly get quite complex and it is very often hard to trace the line of arguments found in literature or social media such as blogs and forums. In this paper, we propose a framework for a decision supporting interactive information retrieval system using methods for argument exploration based on textual documents. This concept is supported by a prototype that focuses on the actual analysis of the retrieved arguments in order to obtain a justified decision. For that we use a simplified argumentation graph with nodes as arguments and simple attacking and supporting relations. A web-based plausibility value is propagated (using ranked-based argumentation semantics) through the network for estimating the quality of the arguments. This is based on a web search for documents that support these arguments. The final decision can further be supported by chosing certain preferred interpretations of an abstract dialectical framework, leading to an integrated view of searching, creating, analysing and deciding.

References

1. F. Bex, S. Modgil, H. Prakken, and C. Reed. On logical specifications of the Argument Interchange Format. J. Log. Comput., 23(5):951--989, 2013.
2. G. Brewka, S. Ellmauthaler, H. Strass, J. P. Wallner, and S. Woltran. Abstract Dialectical Frameworks Revisited. In Proc. of IJCA, 2013.
3. S. Buckingham Shum. The Roots of Computer Supported Argument Visualization. In Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making, pages 3--24, London, 2003.
4. E. W. De Luca, S. Hauke, A. Nürnberger, and S. Schlechtweg. Using Multilingual Ontologies for Adaptive Web-Based Language Exploration. In Proc. of SW-EL 06 (part of AH 2006), pages 35--44, 2006.
5. P. M. Dung. On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games. Artif. Intell., 77(2):321--358, 1995.
6. O. Etzioni, M. Cafarella, D. Downey, S. Kok, A.-M. Popescu, T. Shaked, S. Soderland, D. S. Weld, and A. Yates. Web-scale information extraction in Knowitall: (preliminary results). In Proc. of WWW. ACM, 2004.
7. A. Gürkan, L. Iandoli, M. Klein, and G. Zollo. Mediating debate through on-line large-scale argumentation: Evidence from the field. Information Sciences, 180(19):3686--3702, 2010.
8. S. Haun, T. Gossen, A. Nürnberger, T. Kötter, K. Thiel, and M. R. Berthold. On the Integration of Graph Exploration and Data Analysis: The Creative Exploration Toolkit. In Bisociative Knowledge Discovery, pages 301--312. Springer, 2012.
9. S. Haun, M. Nitsche, and A. Nürnberger. Interactive Visualization of Continuous Node Features in Graphs. In Proc. Works. on Explorative Analytics of Information Networks (part of ECML/PKDD), pages 98--106, 2009.
10. M. A. Hearst. Automatic acquisition of hyponyms from large text corpora. In Proc. of COLING, 1992.
11. J. Lawrence, F. Bex, C. Reed, and M. Snaith. AIFdb: Infrastructure for the argument web. In Proc. of Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), 2012.
12. M. Lippi and P. Torroni. Argumentation Mining: State of the Art and Emerging Trends. ACM Transactions on Internet Technologies, 16(2):10:1--10:25, 2016.
13. S. Modgil and H. Prakken. The ASPIC⁺ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument & Computation, 5(1):31--62, 2014
14. T. Mossakowski and F. Neuhaus. Bipolar weighted argumentation graphs. http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.08572.
15. A. Peldszus and M. Stede. From Argument Diagrams to Argumentation Mining in Texts: A Survey. IJCINI, 7(1):1--31, 2013.
16. R. Pienta, J. Abello, M. Kahng, and D. H. Chau. Scalable graph exploration and visualization: Sensemaking challenges and opportunities. In Proc. Intl. Conf. on Big Data and Smart Comp. (BIGCOMP), pages 271--278. IEEE, 2015.
17. H. Prakken. An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument & Computation, 1(2):93--124, 2010.
18. I. Rahwan and C. Reed. The Argument Interchange Format. In Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, chapter 19, pages 383--402. Springer, 2009.
19. M. Snaith, J. Lawrence, and C. Reed. Mixed initiative argument in public deliberation. In Proc. of 4th Intl. Conf. on Online Deliberation, 2010.
20. M. Snaith and C. Reed. TOAST: Online ASPIC⁺ implementation. In Proc. of Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), 2012.
21. S. W. van den Braak, H. v. Oostendorp, H. Prakken, and G. A. Vreeswijk. A critical review of argument visualization tools: Do users become better reasoners? In Workshop Notes of the ECAI-06 Workshop on CMNA, pages 67--75, 2008.
22. F. van Ham and A. Perer. Search, Show Context, Expand on Demand: Supporting Large Graph Exploration with Degree-of-Interest. IEEE Trans. on Visual. and Comp. Graphics, 15(6):953--960, 2009.

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Document management and text processing

    • Document capture

      • Document analysis

    • Document preparation

      • Annotation