Balancing conflicting factors in argument interpretation

Ingrid Zukerman, Michael MacGillivray Niemann, Sarah Louise George

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference PaperResearchpeer-review


    We present a probabilistic approach for the interpretation of arguments that casts the selection of an interpretation as a model selection task. In selecting the best model, our formalism balances conflicting factors: model complexity against data fit, and structure complexity against belief reasonableness. We first describe our basic formalism, which considers interpretations comprising inferential relations, and then show how our formalism is extended to suppositions that account for the beliefs in an argument, and justifications that account for the inferences in an interpretation. Our evaluations with users show that the interpretations produced by our system are acceptable, and that there is strong support for the postulated suppositions and justifications.

    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationProceedings of the 7th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue (SIGdial06)
    EditorsJan Alexandersson, Alistair Knott
    Place of PublicationStroudsburg USA
    PublisherAssociation for Computational Linguistics (ACL)
    Number of pages10
    ISBN (Electronic)193243271X, 9781932432718
    ISBN (Print)193243271X
    Publication statusPublished - 2006
    EventSIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialog 2006 - Sydney, Australia
    Duration: 15 Jul 200616 Jul 2006
    Conference number: 7th (Proceedings)


    ConferenceSIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialog 2006
    Abbreviated titleSIGdial 2006
    Internet address

    Cite this