Towards a corpus for credibility assessment in software practitioner blog articles

Blogs are a source of grey literature which are widely adopted by software practitioners for disseminating opinion and experience. Analysing such articles can provide useful insights into the state-of-practice for software engineering research. However, there are challenges in identifying higher quality content from the large quantity of articles available. Credibility assessment can help in identifying quality content, though there is a lack of existing corpora. Credibility is typically measured through a series of conceptual criteria, with 'argumentation' and 'evidence' being two important criteria. We create a corpus labelled for argumentation and evidence that can aid the credibility community. The corpus consists of articles from the blog of a single software practitioner and is publicly available. Three annotators label the corpus with a series of conceptual credibility criteria, reaching an agreement of 0.82 (Fleiss' Kappa). We present preliminary analysis of the corpus by using it to investigate the identification of claim sentences (one of our ten labels). We train four systems (Bert, KNN, Decision Tree and SVM) using three feature sets (Bag of Words, Topic Modelling and InferSent), achieving an F1 score of 0.64 using InferSent and a Linear SVM. Our preliminary results are promising, indicating that the corpus can help future studies in detecting the credibility of grey literature. Future research will investigate the degree to which the sentence level annotations can infer the credibility of the overall document

Formalising Human Mental Workload as a Defeasible Computational Concept

Human mental workload has gained importance, in the last few decades, as a fundamental design concept in human-computer interaction. It can be intuitively defined as the amount of mental work necessary for a person to complete a task over a given period of time. For people interacting with interfaces, computers and technological devices in general, the construct plays an important role. At a low level, while processing information, often people feel annoyed and frustrated; at higher level, mental workload is critical and dangerous as it leads to confusion, it decreases the performance of information processing and it increases the chances of errors and mistakes. It is extensively documented that either mental overload or underload negatively affect performance. Hence, designers and practitioners who are ultimately interested in system or human performance need answers about operator workload at all stages of system design and operation. At an early system design phase, designers require some explicit model to predict the mental workload imposed by their technologies on end-users so that alternative system designs can be evaluated. However, human mental workload is a multifaceted and complex construct mainly applied in cognitive sciences. A plethora of ad-hoc definitions can be found in the literature. Generally, it is not an elementary property, rather it emerges from the interaction between the requirements of a task, the circumstances under which it is performed and the skills, behaviours and perceptions of the operator. Although measuring mental workload has advantages in interaction and interface design, its formalisation as an operational and computational construct has not sufficiently been addressed. Many researchers agree that too many ad-hoc models are present in the literature and that they are applied subjectively by mental workload designers thereby limiting their application in different contexts and making comparison across different models difficult. This thesis introduces a novel computational framework for representing and assessing human mental workload based on defeasible reasoning. The starting point is the investigation of the nature of human mental workload that appears to be a defeasible phenomenon. A defeasible concept is a concept built upon a set of arguments that can be defeated by adding additional arguments. The word ‘defeasible’ is inherited from defeasible reasoning, a form of reasoning built upon reasons that can be defeated. It is also known as non-monotonic reasoning because of the technical property (non-monotonicity) of the logical formalisms that are aimed at modelling defeasible reasoning activity. Here, a conclusion or claim, derived from the application of previous knowledge, can be retracted in the light of new evidence. Formally, state-of-the-art defeasible reasoning models are implemented employing argumentation theory, a multi-disciplinary paradigm that incorporates elements of philosophy, psychology and sociology. It systematically studies how arguments can be built, sustained or discarded in a reasoning process, and it investigates the validity of their conclusions. Since mental workload can be seen as a defeasible phenomenon, formal defeasible argumentation theory may have a positive impact in its representation and assessment. Mental workload can be captured, analysed, and measured in ways that increase its understanding allowing its use for practical activities. The research question investigated here is whether defeasible argumentation theory can enhance the representation of the construct of mental workload and improve the quality of its assessment in the field of human-computer interaction. In order to answer this question, recurrent knowledge and evidence employed in state-of-the-art mental workload measurement techniques have been reviewed in the first place as well as their defeasible and non-monotonic properties. Secondly, an investigation of the state-of-the-art computational techniques for implementing defeasible reasoning has been carried out. This allowed the design of a modular framework for mental workload representation and assessment. The proposed solution has been evaluated by comparing the properties of sensitivity, diagnosticity and validity of the assessments produced by two instances of the framework against the ones produced by two well known subjective mental workload assessments techniques (the Nasa Task Load Index and the Workload Profile) in the context of human-web interaction. In detail, through an empirical user study, it has been firstly demonstrated how these two state-of-the-art techniques can be translated into two particular instances of the framework while still maintaining the same validity. In other words, the indexes of mental workload inferred by the two original instruments, and the ones generated by their corresponding translations (instances of the framework) showed a positive and nearly perfect statistical correlation. Additionally, a new defeasible instance built with the framework showed a better sensitivity and a higher diagnosticity capacity than the two selected state-of-the art techniques. The former showed a higher convergent validity with the latter techniques, but a better concurrent validity with performance measures. The new defeasible instance generated indexes of mental workload that better correlated with the objective time for task completion compared to the two selected instruments. These findings support the research question thereby demonstrating how defeasible argumentation theory can be successfully adopted to support the representation of mental workload and to enhance the quality of its assessments. The main contribution of this thesis is the presentation of a methodology, developed as a formal modular framework, to represent mental workload as a defeasible computational concept and to assess it as a numerical usable index. This research contributes to the body of knowledge by providing a modular framework built upon defeasible reasoning and formalised through argumentation theory in which workload can be optimally measured, analysed, explained and applied in different contexts

Benefitting from the Grey Literature in Software Engineering Research

Researchers generally place the most trust in peer-reviewed, published information, such as journals and conference papers. By contrast, software engineering (SE) practitioners typically do not have the time, access or expertise to review and benefit from such publications. As a result, practitioners are more likely to turn to other sources of information that they trust, e.g., trade magazines, online blog-posts, survey results or technical reports, collectively referred to as Grey Literature (GL). Furthermore, practitioners also share their ideas and experiences as GL, which can serve as a valuable data source for research. While GL itself is not a new topic in SE, using, benefitting and synthesizing knowledge from the GL in SE is a contemporary topic in empirical SE research and we are seeing that researchers are increasingly benefitting from the knowledge available within GL. The goal of this chapter is to provide an overview to GL in SE, together with insights on how SE researchers can effectively use and benefit from the knowledge and evidence available in the vast amount of GL

Evaluating the Impact of Defeasible Argumentation as a Modelling Technique for Reasoning under Uncertainty

Limited work exists for the comparison across distinct knowledge-based approaches in Artificial Intelligence (AI) for non-monotonic reasoning, and in particular for the examination of their inferential and explanatory capacity. Non-monotonicity, or defeasibility, allows the retraction of a conclusion in the light of new information. It is a similar pattern to human reasoning, which draws conclusions in the absence of information, but allows them to be corrected once new pieces of evidence arise. Thus, this thesis focuses on a comparison of three approaches in AI for implementation of non-monotonic reasoning models of inference, namely: expert systems, fuzzy reasoning and defeasible argumentation. Three applications from the fields of decision-making in healthcare and knowledge representation and reasoning were selected from real-world contexts for evaluation: human mental workload modelling, computational trust modelling, and mortality occurrence modelling with biomarkers. The link between these applications comes from their presumptively non-monotonic nature. They present incomplete, ambiguous and retractable pieces of evidence. Hence, reasoning applied to them is likely suitable for being modelled by non-monotonic reasoning systems. An experiment was performed by exploiting six deductive knowledge bases produced with the aid of domain experts. These were coded into models built upon the selected reasoning approaches and were subsequently elicited with real-world data. The numerical inferences produced by these models were analysed according to common metrics of evaluation for each field of application. For the examination of explanatory capacity, properties such as understandability, extensibility, and post-hoc interpretability were meticulously described and qualitatively compared. Findings suggest that the variance of the inferences produced by expert systems and fuzzy reasoning models was higher, highlighting poor stability. In contrast, the variance of argument-based models was lower, showing a superior stability of its inferences across different system configurations. In addition, when compared in a context with large amounts of conflicting information, defeasible argumentation exhibited a stronger potential for conflict resolution, while presenting robust inferences. An in-depth discussion of the explanatory capacity showed how defeasible argumentation can lead to the construction of non-monotonic models with appealing properties of explainability, compared to those built with expert systems and fuzzy reasoning. The originality of this research lies in the quantification of the impact of defeasible argumentation. It illustrates the construction of an extensive number of non-monotonic reasoning models through a modular design. In addition, it exemplifies how these models can be exploited for performing non-monotonic reasoning and producing quantitative inferences in real-world applications. It contributes to the field of non-monotonic reasoning by situating defeasible argumentation among similar approaches through a novel empirical comparison

Empowering Qualitative Research Methods in Education with Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence is one of the fastest growing disciplines, disrupting many sectors. Originally mainly for computer scientists and engineers, it has been expanding its horizons and empowering many other disciplines contributing to the development of many novel applications in many sectors. These include medicine and health care, business and finance, psychology and neuroscience, physics and biology to mention a few. However, one of the disciplines in which artificial intelligence has not been fully explored and exploited yet is education. In this discipline, many research methods are employed by scholars, lecturers and practitioners to investigate the impact of different instructional approaches on learning and to understand the ways skills and knowledge are acquired by learners. One of these is qualitative research, a scientific method grounded in observations that manipulates and analyses non-numerical data. It focuses on seeking answers to why and how a particular observed phenomenon occurs rather than on its occurrences. This study aims to explore and discuss the impact of artificial intelligence on qualitative research methods. In particular, it focuses on how artificial intelligence have empowered qualitative research methods so far, and how it can be used in education for enhancing teaching and learning

Thirty years of Artificial Intelligence and Law:the second decade

The first issue of Artificial Intelligence and Law journal was published in 1992. This paper provides commentaries on nine significant papers drawn from the Journal’s second decade. Four of the papers relate to reasoning with legal cases, introducing contextual considerations, predicting outcomes on the basis of natural language descriptions of the cases, comparing different ways of representing cases, and formalising precedential reasoning. One introduces a method of analysing arguments that was to become very widely used in AI and Law, namely argumentation schemes. Two relate to ontologies for the representation of legal concepts and two take advantage of the increasing availability of legal corpora in this decade, to automate document summarisation and for the mining of arguments

Extending a corpus for assessing the credibility of software practitioner blog articles using meta-knowledge

Practitioner written grey literature, such as blog articles, has value in software engineering research. Such articles provide insight into practice that is often not visible to research. However, a high quantity and varying quality are two major challenges in utilising such material. Quality is defined as an aggregate of a document's relevance to the consumer and its credibility. Credibility is often assessed through a series of conceptual criteria that are specific to a particular user group. For researchers, previous work has found argumentation' and >evidence' to be two important criteria. In this paper, we extend a previously developed corpus by annotating at broader granularity. We then investigate whether the original annotations (sentence level) can infer these new annotations (article level). Our preliminary results show that sentence-level annotations infer the overall credibility of an article with an F1 score of 91%. These results indicate that the corpus can help future studies in detecting the credibility of practitioner written grey literature

Framing a Knowledge Base for a Legal Expert System Dealing with Indeterminate Concepts

Despite decades of development of formal tools for modelling legal knowledge and reasoning, the creation of a fully fledged legal decision support system remains challenging. Among those challenges, such system requires an enormous amount of commonsense knowledge to derive legal expertise. This paper describes the development of a negotiation decision support system (the Parenting Plan Support System or PPSS) to support parents in drafting an agreement (the parenting plan) for the exercise of parental custody of minor children after a divorce is granted. The main objective here is to discuss problems of framing an intuitively appealing and computationally efficient knowledge base that can adequately represent the indeterminate legal concept of the well-being of the child in the context of continental legal culture and of Polish law in particular. In addition to commonsense reasoning, interpretation of such a concept demands both legal expertise and significant professional knowledge from other domains