5 research outputs found

    An Emergent Approach to Text Analysis Based on a Connectionist Model and the Web

    Get PDF
    In this paper, we present a method to provide proactive assistance in text checking, based on usage relationships between words structuralized on the Web. For a given sentence, the method builds a connectionist structure of relationships between word n-grams. Such structure is then parameterized by means of an unsupervised and language agnostic optimization process. Finally, the method provides a representation of the sentence that allows emerging the least prominent usage-based relational patterns, helping to easily find badly-written and unpopular text. The study includes the problem statement and its characterization in the literature, as well as the proposed solving approach and some experimental use

    An argument‐based decision support system for assessing natural language usage on the basis of the web corpus

    Get PDF
    The last decade bears witness to an exponential growth in the use of the World Wide Web. As a result, a huge number of documents are accessible online through search engines, whose pattern‐matching capabilities have turned out to be useful for mining the Web space as a particular kind of linguistic corpus, commonly known as the Web Corpus. This article presents a novel, argumentative approach to providing proactive assistance for language usage assessment on the basis of usage indices, which are good indicators of the suitability of an expression on the basis of the Web Corpus. The user preferences consist of a number of (possibly defeasible) rules and facts that encode different aspects of adequate language usage, defining the acceptability of different terms on the basis of the computed usage indices. A defeasible argumentation system determines if a given expression is ultimately acceptable by analyzing a defeasible logic program that encodes the user's preferences.Fil: Chesñevar, Carlos Iván. Universitat de Lleida; España. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; ArgentinaFil: Sabaté-Carrové, Mariona. Universitat de Lleida; EspañaFil: Maguitman, Ana Gabriela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Indiana University; Estados Unido

    Les systèmes d'argumentation basés sur les préférences : application à la décision et à la négociation

    Get PDF
    L'argumentation est considérée comme un modèle de raisonnement basé sur la construction et l'évaluation d'arguments. Ces derniers sont sensés soutenir/expliquer/attaquer des assertions qui peuvent être des décisions, des avis, etc... Cette thèse contient trois parties. La première concerne la notion d'équivalence de systèmes d'argumentation. Nous avons proposé différents critères d'équivalence, étudié leurs liens et montré sous quelles conditions deux systèmes sont équivalents selon les critères proposés. La notion d'équivalence est ensuite utilisée pour calculer les noyaux d'un système d'argumentation. Un noyau est un sous-système fini d'un système d'argumentation et équivalent à celui-ci. La deuxième partie de la thèse concerne l'utilisation des préférences dans l'argumentation. Nous avons étudié les rôles que les préférences peuvent jouer dans un système d'argumentation. Deux rôles particuliers ont été identifiés. Nous avons montré que les travaux existant ont abordé seulement le premier rôle et les approches proposées peuvent retourner des résultats contre-intuitifs lorsque la relation d'attaque entre arguments n'est pas symétrique. Nous avons développé une approche qui pallie ces limites. La troisième partie applique notre modèle d'argumentation à la décision et à la négociation. Nous avons proposé une instanciation de notre modèle pour la décision argumentée. Puis, nous avons étudié la dynamique de cette instanciation. Plus précisément, nous avons montré comment le statut des options change à la lumière d'un nouvel argument. Nous avons également employé notre modèle afin de montrer les avantages de l'argumentation dans des dialogues de négociation.Argumentation is a promising approach for reasoning with uncertain or incoherent knowledge or more generally with common sense knowledge. It consists of constructing arguments and counter-arguments, comparing the different arguments and selecting the most acceptable among them. This thesis contains three parts. The first one concerns the notion of equivalence between two argumentation frameworks. We studied two families of equivalence: basic equivalence and strong equivalence. We proposed different equivalence criteria, investigated their links and showed under which conditions two frameworks are equivalent w.r.t. each of the proposed criteria. The notion of equivalence is then used in order to compute the core(s) of an argumentation framework. A core of a framework is its compact version, i.e. an equivalent sub-framework. The second part of the thesis concerns the use of preferences in argumentation. We investigated the roles that preferences may play in an argumentation framework. Two particular roles were identified. Besides, we showed that almost all the existing works have tackled only the first role. Moreover, the proposed approaches suffer from a drawback which consists of returning conflicting extensions. We proposed a general approach which solves this problem and takes into account both roles of preferences. The third part illustrates our preference-based argumentation frameworks (PAF) in case of decision making and negotiation. We proposed an instantiation of our PAF which rank-orders options in a decision making problem and studied the dynamics of this model. We also used our PAF in order to show the benefits of arguing in negotiation dialogues
    corecore