And That's A Fact: Distinguishing Factual and Emotional Argumentation in Online Dialogue

Oraby, Shereen; Reed, Lena; Compton, Ryan; Riloff, Ellen; Walker, Marilyn A.; Whittaker, Steve

doi:10.3115/v1/w15-0515

Cited by 35 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We do a grid-search, testing the performance of our patterns thresholds from θ f = {2-6} in intervals of 1, θ p ={0.60-0.85} in intervals of 0.05. Once we extract the subset of patterns passing our thresholds, we search for these patterns in the posts in our development set, classifying a post as a given class if it contains θ n ={1, (Riloff, 1996;Oraby et al, 2015). An advantage of AutoSlog-TS is that it supports systematic exploration of recall and precision tradeoffs, by selecting pattern sets using different parameters.…”

Section: Learning Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating and Characterizing a Diverse Corpus of Sarcasm in Dialogue

Oraby

Harrison

Reed

et al. 2016

Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of irony and sarcasm in social media allows us to study them at scale for the first time. However, their diversity has made it difficult to construct a high-quality corpus of sarcasm in dialogue. Here, we describe the process of creating a largescale, highly-diverse corpus of online debate forums dialogue, and our novel methods for operationalizing classes of sarcasm in the form of rhetorical questions and hyperbole. We show that we can use lexico-syntactic cues to reliably retrieve sarcastic utterances with high accuracy. To demonstrate the properties and quality of our corpus, we conduct supervised learning experiments with simple features, and show that we achieve both higher precision and F than previous work on sarcasm in debate forums dialogue. We apply a weakly-supervised linguistic pattern learner and qualitatively analyze the linguistic differences in each class.

show abstract

Section: Learning Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating and Characterizing a Diverse Corpus of Sarcasm in Dialogue

Oraby

Harrison

Reed

et al. 2016

Proceedings of the 17th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, in order to avoid stale and repetitive utterances, we can alter and repurpose the candidate utterances; for example, we can use paraphrase or summarization to create new ways of saying the same thing, or to select utterance candidates according to the desired sentiment [12,13]. The style of an utterance can be altered based on requirements; introducing elements of sarcasm, or aspects of factual and emotional argumentation styles [15,14]. Changes in the perceived speaker personality can also make more personable conversations [11].…”

Section: Data-driven Models Of Human Languagementioning

confidence: 99%

Data-Driven Dialogue Systems for Social Agents

Bowden

Oraby

Misra

et al. 2018

Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to build dialogue systems to tackle the ambitious task of holding social conversations, we argue that we need a data-driven approach that includes insight into human conversational "chit-chat", and which incorporates different natural language processing modules. Our strategy is to analyze and index large corpora of social media data, including Twitter conversations, online debates, dialogues between friends, and blog posts, and then to couple this data retrieval with modules that perform tasks such as sentiment and style analysis, topic modeling, and summarization. We aim for personal assistants that can learn more nuanced human language, and to grow from task-oriented agents to more personable social bots.

show abstract

“…We take advantage of the annotations provided for subsets of the IAC, in particular the subcorpus that distinguishes FACTUAL posts from EMOTIONAL posts (Abbott et al, 2016;Oraby et al, 2015). 4 Table 3 , with GoogleNews Word2Vec (W2V) features.…”

Section: Rqs Vs Information-seeking Qsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proceedings of the 18th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We are excited to welcome you to this year's SIGdial Conference, the 18th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue. We are pleased to hold the conference in Saarbrücken on August 15-17th, co-located with SemDial 2017, and in close proximity to both INTERSPEECH 2017 and YRRSDS 2017, the Young Researchers' Roundtable on Spoken Dialog Systems.The SIGdial conference remains a premier publication venue for research in discourse and dialogue. This year, the program includes oral presentations, poster sessions, and one demo session. SIGdial 2017 also hosts three special sessions, two joint with SemDial 2017.We received 113 submissions this year. In only one previous year has there been a greater number of submissions to SIGdial. All long and short papers received at least 3 reviews. We carefully considered both the numeric ratings and the tenor of the comments in making our selections for the program. Overall, the members of the Program Committee did an excellent job in reviewing the submitted papers. We thank them for their important role in selecting the accepted papers and for helping to come up with a high quality program for the conference. We also thank Pierre Lison, Mentoring Chair for SIGdial 2017, for his dedicated work on the mentoring process. The goal of mentoring is to assist authors of papers that contain important ideas but lack clarity. In line with the SIGdial tradition, our aim has been to create a balanced program that accommodates as many favorably rated papers as possible. We accepted 29 long papers, 11 short papers and 7 demo presentations. These numbers give an overall acceptance rate of 41.6%. The rates separately for types of papers are 42% for long papers, 30% for short and 87% for demo submissions. Of the long papers, 18 were presented as oral presentations. The remaining 11 long papers and all the short papers were presented as posters, split into two poster sessions.This year SIGdial has three special sessions on topics of growing interest. The chosen sessions were (i) the Special Session on Negotiation Dialog organized by Amanda Stent, Aasish Pappu, Diane Litman and Marilyn Walker; (ii) the Second WOCHAT Special Session on Chatbots and Conversational Agents organized by Ryuichiro Higashinaka, Ron Artstein, Rafael E. Banchs, and Wolfgang Minker; and (iii) Special Session on Natural Language Generation for Dialog Systems organized by Marilyn Walker, Verena Rieser, Vera Demberg, Dietrich Klakow, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, David M. Howcroft and Shereen Oraby. These specialized topics brought diverse paper submissions to our technical program. At the conference, the special sessions also featured panel discussions and position talks, allowing for active engagement of the conference participants. This year, two of these special sessions, the one on negotiation and on conversational agents, are part of the joint SIGdial/SemDial program at the conference bringing both communities to participate in them. This year's SIGdial conference runs 3 full days compared to previous year...

show abstract

And That's A Fact: Distinguishing Factual and Emotional Argumentation in Online Dialogue

Cited by 35 publications

References 30 publications

Creating and Characterizing a Diverse Corpus of Sarcasm in Dialogue

Creating and Characterizing a Diverse Corpus of Sarcasm in Dialogue

Data-Driven Dialogue Systems for Social Agents

Proceedings of the 18th Annual SIGdial Meeting on Discourse and Dialogue

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About