Prediction, Recommendation and Group Analytics Models in the domain of Mashup Services and Cyber-Argumentation Platform

Mashup application development is becoming a widespread software development practice due to its appeal for a shorter application development period. Application developers usually use web APIs from different sources to create a new streamlined service and provide various features to end-users. This kind of practice saves time, ensures reliability, accuracy, and security in the developed applications. Mashup application developers integrate these available APIs into their applications. Still, they have to go through thousands of available web APIs and chose only a few appropriate ones for their application. Recommending relevant web APIs might help application developers in this situation. However, very low API invocation from mashup applications creates a sparse mashup-web API dataset for the recommendation models to learn about the mashups and their web API invocation pattern. One research aims to analyze these mashup-specific critical issues, look for supplemental information in the mashup domain, and develop web API recommendation models for mashup applications. The developed recommendation model generates useful and accurate web APIs to reduce the impact of low API invocations in mashup application development. Cyber-Argumentation platform also faces a similarly challenging issue. In large-scale cyber argumentation platforms, participants express their opinions, engage with one another, and respond to feedback and criticism from others in discussing important issues online. Argumentation analysis tools capture the collective intelligence of the participants and reveal hidden insights from the underlying discussions. However, such analysis requires that the issues have been thoroughly discussed and participant’s opinions are clearly expressed and understood. Participants typically focus only on a few ideas and leave others unacknowledged and underdiscussed. This generates a limited dataset to work with, resulting in an incomplete analysis of issues in the discussion. One solution to this problem would be to develop an opinion prediction model for cyber-argumentation. This model would predict participant’s opinions on different ideas that they have not explicitly engaged. In cyber-argumentation, individuals interact with each other without any group coordination. However, the implicit group interaction can impact the participating user\u27s opinion, attitude, and discussion outcome. One of the objectives of this research work is to analyze different group analytics in the cyber-argumentation environment. The objective is to design an experiment to inspect whether the critical concepts of the Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) are valid in our argumentation platform. This experiment can help us understand whether anonymity and group sense impact user\u27s behavior in our platform. Another section is about developing group interaction models to help us understand different aspects of group interactions in the cyber-argumentation platform. These research works can help develop web API recommendation models tailored for mashup-specific domains and opinion prediction models for the cyber-argumentation specific area. Primarily these models utilize domain-specific knowledge and integrate them with traditional prediction and recommendation approaches. Our work on group analytic can be seen as the initial steps to understand these group interactions

On Recommendation of Learning Objects using Felder-Silverman Learning Style Model

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.The e-learning recommender system in learning institutions is increasingly becoming the preferred mode of delivery, as it enables learning anytime, anywhere. However, delivering personalised course learning objects based on learner preferences is still a challenge. Current mainstream recommendation algorithms, such as the Collaborative Filtering (CF) and Content-Based Filtering (CBF), deal with only two types of entities, namely users and items with their ratings. However, these methods do not pay attention to student preferences, such as learning styles, which are especially important for the accuracy of course learning objects prediction or recommendation. Moreover, several recommendation techniques experience cold-start and rating sparsity problems. To address the challenge of improving the quality of recommender systems, in this paper a novel recommender algorithm for machine learning is proposed, which combines students actual rating with their learning styles to recommend Top-N course learning objects (LOs). Various recommendation techniques are considered in an experimental study investigating the best technique to use in predicting student ratings for e-learning recommender systems. We use the Felder-Silverman Learning Styles Model (FSLSM) to represent both the student learning styles and the learning object profiles. The predicted rating has been compared with the actual student rating. This approach has been experimented on 80 students for an online course created in the MOODLE Learning Management System, while the evaluation of the experiments has been performed with the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). The results of the experiment verify that the proposed approach provides a higher prediction rating and significantly increases the accuracy of the recommendation

On the Extraction and Use of Arguments in Recommender Systems: A Case Study in the E-participation Domain

In this paper, we present ongoing work on the automatic extraction of arguments from textual content, and on the use of interconnected argument structures by recommender systems. Differently to the majority of existing argument mining methods –which only consider ‘premise’ and ‘claim’ as the components of an argument, and ‘support’ and ‘attack’ as the possible relations between argument components–, we propose an argumentation model based on a detailed taxonomy of argumentative relations. Moreover, we provide a lexicon of English and Spanish linguistic connectors categorized in our taxonomy. As a proof of concept, we apply a simple, yet effective method that makes use of the built taxonomy and lexicon to extract argument graphs from citizen proposals and debates of an e-participation platform. We then describe how the extracted graphs could be exploited to generate and explain argument-based recommendationsThis work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (PID2019-108965GB-I00

Argument-based generation and explanation of recommendations

In the recommender systems literature, it has been shown that, in addition to improving system effectiveness, explaining recommendations may increase user satisfaction, trust, persuasion and loyalty. In general, explanations focus on the filtering algorithms or the users and items involved in the generation of recommendations. However, on certain domains that are rich on user-generated textual content, it would be valuable to provide justifications of recommendations according to arguments that are explicit, underlying or related with the data used by the systems, e.g., the reasons for customers' opinions in reviews of e-commerce sites, and the requests and claims in citizens' proposals and debates of e-participation platforms. In this context, there is a need and challenging task to automatically extract and exploit the arguments given for and against evaluated items. We thus advocate to focus not only on user preferences and item features, but also on associated arguments. In other words, we propose to not only consider what is said about items, but also why it is said. Hence, arguments would not only be part of the recommendation explanations, but could also be used by the recommendation algorithms themselves. To this end, in this thesis, we propose to use argument mining techniques and tools that allow retrieving and relating argumentative information from textual content, and investigate recommendation methods that exploit that information before, during and after their filtering processesThe author thanks his supervisor Iván Cantador for his valuable support and guidance in defining this thesis project. The work is supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (PID2019-108965GB-I00

Context-aware feature attribution through argumentation

Feature attribution is a fundamental task in both machine learning and data analysis, which involves determining the contribution of individual features or variables to a model's output. This process helps identify the most important features for predicting an outcome. The history of feature attribution methods can be traced back to General Additive Models (GAMs), which extend linear regression models by incorporating non-linear relationships between dependent and independent variables. In recent years, gradient-based methods and surrogate models have been applied to unravel complex Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, but these methods have limitations. GAMs tend to achieve lower accuracy, gradient-based methods can be difficult to interpret, and surrogate models often suffer from stability and fidelity issues. Furthermore, most existing methods do not consider users' contexts, which can significantly influence their preferences. To address these limitations and advance the current state-of-the-art, we define a novel feature attribution framework called Context-Aware Feature Attribution Through Argumentation (CA-FATA). Our framework harnesses the power of argumentation by treating each feature as an argument that can either support, attack or neutralize a prediction. Additionally, CA-FATA formulates feature attribution as an argumentation procedure, and each computation has explicit semantics, which makes it inherently interpretable. CA-FATA also easily integrates side information, such as users' contexts, resulting in more accurate predictions

Dialogical intentions and customization of recommendations for the assessment of medical deliberation

UIDB/00183/2020 UIDP/00183/2020 PTDC/FER‐FIL/28278/2017 PTDC/MHC-FIL/0521/2014Dialogue moves are a pragmatic instrument that captures the most important categories of “dialogical intentions.” This paper adapts this tool to the conversational setting of chronic care communication, characterized by the general goal of making reasoned decisions concerning patients’ conditions, shared by the latter. 7 mutually exclusive and comprehensive categories were identified, whose reliability was tested on an Italian corpus of provider-patient encounters in diabetes care. The application of this method was illustrated through explorative analyses identifying possible correlations between the dialogical structure of medical interviews and one of the indicators of personalized decision-making, namely the specificity of the recommendations given by the provider (“customization”). The statistical analyses show a significant correlation between the exchange of personal information and very specific and customized recommendations for change. It suggests how the creation of common ground, exceeding the boundaries of the paternalistic or patient-centered models, can lead to highly effective communication.authorsversionpublishe

When personalization is not an option: An in-the-wild study on persuasive news recommendation

Aiming at granting wide access to their contents, online information providers often choose not to have registered users, and therefore must give up personalization. In this paper, we focus on the case of non-personalized news recommender systems, and explore persuasive techniques that can, nonetheless, be used to enhance recommendation presentation, with the aim of capturing the user’s interest on suggested items leveraging the way news is perceived. We present the results of two evaluations “in the wild”, carried out in the context of a real online magazine and based on data from 16,134 and 20,933 user sessions, respectively, where we empirically assessed the effectiveness of persuasion strategies which exploit logical fallacies and other techniques. Logical fallacies are inferential schemes known since antiquity that, even if formally invalid, appear as plausible and are therefore psychologically persuasive. In particular, our evaluations allowed us to compare three persuasive scenarios based on the Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy, on a modified version of the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy (Group-Ad Populum), and on no fallacy (neutral condition), respectively. Moreover, we studied the effects of the Accent Fallacy (in its visual variant), and of positive vs. negative Framing