Machine Understanding of Human Behavior

A widely accepted prediction is that computing will move to the background, weaving itself into the fabric of our everyday living spaces and projecting the human user into the foreground. If this prediction is to come true, then next generation computing, which we will call human computing, should be about anticipatory user interfaces that should be human-centered, built for humans based on human models. They should transcend the traditional keyboard and mouse to include natural, human-like interactive functions including understanding and emulating certain human behaviors such as affective and social signaling. This article discusses a number of components of human behavior, how they might be integrated into computers, and how far we are from realizing the front end of human computing, that is, how far are we from enabling computers to understand human behavior

We usually don't like going to the dentist : using common sense to detect irony on Twitter

A

Common Sense Reasoning for Detection, Prevention, and Mitigation of Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying (harassment on social networks) is widely recognized as a serious social problem, especially for adolescents. It is as much a threat to the viability of online social networks for youth today as spam once was to email in the early days of the Internet. Current work to tackle this problem has involved social and psychological studies on its prevalence as well as its negative effects on adolescents. While true solutions rest on teaching youth to have healthy personal relationships, few have considered innovative design of social network software as a tool for mitigating this problem. Mitigating cyberbullying involves two key components: robust techniques for effective detection and reflective user interfaces that encourage users to reflect upon their behavior and their choices. Spam filters have been successful by applying statistical approaches like Bayesian networks and hidden Markov models. They can, like Google’s GMail, aggregate human spam judgments because spam is sent nearly identically to many people. Bullying is more personalized, varied, and contextual. In this work, we present an approach for bullying detection based on state-of-the-art natural language processing and a common sense knowledge base, which permits recognition over a broad spectrum of topics in everyday life. We analyze a more narrow range of particular subject matter associated with bullying (e.g. appearance, intelligence, racial and ethnic slurs, social acceptance, and rejection), and construct BullySpace, a common sense knowledge base that encodes particular knowledge about bullying situations. We then perform joint reasoning with common sense knowledge about a wide range of everyday life topics. We analyze messages using our novel AnalogySpace common sense reasoning technique. We also take into account social network analysis and other factors. We evaluate the model on real-world instances that have been reported by users on Formspring, a social networking website that is popular with teenagers. On the intervention side, we explore a set of reflective user-interaction paradigms with the goal of promoting empathy among social network participants. We propose an “air traffic control”-like dashboard, which alerts moderators to large-scale outbreaks that appear to be escalating or spreading and helps them prioritize the current deluge of user complaints. For potential victims, we provide educational material that informs them about how to cope with the situation, and connects them with emotional support from others. A user evaluation shows that in-context, targeted, and dynamic help during cyberbullying situations fosters end-user reflection that promotes better coping strategies

Implicit emotion detection in text

In text, emotion can be expressed explicitly, using emotion-bearing words (e.g. happy, guilty) or implicitly without emotion-bearing words. Existing approaches focus on the detection of explicitly expressed emotion in text. However, there are various ways to express and convey emotions without the use of these emotion-bearing words. For example, given two sentences: “The outcome of my exam makes me happy” and “I passed my exam”, both sentences express happiness, with the first expressing it explicitly and the other implying it. In this thesis, we investigate implicit emotion detection in text. We propose a rule-based approach for implicit emotion detection, which can be used without labeled corpora for training. Our results show that our approach outperforms the lexicon matching method consistently and gives competitive performance in comparison to supervised classifiers. Given that emotions such as guilt and admiration which often require the identification of blameworthiness and praiseworthiness, we also propose an approach for the detection of blame and praise in text, using an adapted psychology model, Path model to blame. Lack of benchmarking dataset led us to construct a corpus containing comments of individuals’ emotional experiences annotated as blame, praise or others. Since implicit emotion detection might be useful for conflict-of-interest (CoI) detection in Wikipedia articles, we built a CoI corpus and explored various features including linguistic and stylometric, presentation, bias and emotion features. Our results show that emotion features are important when using Nave Bayes, but the best performance is obtained with SVM on linguistic and stylometric features only. Overall, we show that a rule-based approach can be used to detect implicit emotion in the absence of labelled data; it is feasible to adopt the psychology path model to blame for blame/praise detection from text, and implicit emotion detection is beneficial for CoI detection in Wikipedia articles

Ontologies and Information Extraction

This report argues that, even in the simplest cases, IE is an ontology-driven process. It is not a mere text filtering method based on simple pattern matching and keywords, because the extracted pieces of texts are interpreted with respect to a predefined partial domain model. This report shows that depending on the nature and the depth of the interpretation to be done for extracting the information, more or less knowledge must be involved. This report is mainly illustrated in biology, a domain in which there are critical needs for content-based exploration of the scientific literature and which becomes a major application domain for IE

Directional adposition use in English, Swedish and Finnish

Directional adpositions such as to the left of describe where a Figure is in relation to a Ground. English and Swedish directional adpositions refer to the location of a Figure in relation to a Ground, whether both are static or in motion. In contrast, the Finnish directional adpositions edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) solely describe the location of a moving Figure in relation to a moving Ground (Nikanne, 2003). When using directional adpositions, a frame of reference must be assumed for interpreting the meaning of directional adpositions. For example, the meaning of to the left of in English can be based on a relative (speaker or listener based) reference frame or an intrinsic (object based) reference frame (Levinson, 1996). When a Figure and a Ground are both in motion, it is possible for a Figure to be described as being behind or in front of the Ground, even if neither have intrinsic features. As shown by Walker (in preparation), there are good reasons to assume that in the latter case a motion based reference frame is involved. This means that if Finnish speakers would use edellä (in front of) and jäljessä (behind) more frequently in situations where both the Figure and Ground are in motion, a difference in reference frame use between Finnish on one hand and English and Swedish on the other could be expected. We asked native English, Swedish and Finnish speakers’ to select adpositions from a language specific list to describe the location of a Figure relative to a Ground when both were shown to be moving on a computer screen. We were interested in any differences between Finnish, English and Swedish speakers. All languages showed a predominant use of directional spatial adpositions referring to the lexical concepts TO THE LEFT OF, TO THE RIGHT OF, ABOVE and BELOW. There were no differences between the languages in directional adpositions use or reference frame use, including reference frame use based on motion. We conclude that despite differences in the grammars of the languages involved, and potential differences in reference frame system use, the three languages investigated encode Figure location in relation to Ground location in a similar way when both are in motion. Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslingiuistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M.A. Peterson, L. Nadel & M.F. Garrett (Eds.) Language and Space (pp.109-170). Massachusetts: MIT Press. Nikanne, U. (2003). How Finnish postpositions see the axis system. In E. van der Zee & J. Slack (Eds.), Representing direction in language and space. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Walker, C. (in preparation). Motion encoding in language, the use of spatial locatives in a motion context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lincoln, Lincoln. United Kingdo