From 2c2c7428f8bb1457c392268d2297d6ebd5a14d41 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: feger <marc.feger@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2020 17:56:03 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Update slides/introduction.tex
---
slides/introduction.tex | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/slides/introduction.tex b/slides/introduction.tex
index ee323b0..bfa23f0 100644
--- a/slides/introduction.tex
+++ b/slides/introduction.tex
@@ -4,8 +4,8 @@
\frametitle{Motivation}
\begin{columns}
\column{0.7\textwidth}
+ \textbf{\emph{What would you like to search for? \\What would you like to know?}}
\begin{itemize}
- \item \textbf{\emph{What would you like to search for? \\What would you like to know?}}
\item The web is full of data, including discussions and arguments
\item Conventional web searches sort results in order of relevance
\item Future search engines should be able to provide searches for arguments
@@ -23,8 +23,25 @@
\item[($a_3$):] \emph{With so many food choices available, why are peanuts a necessary choice?}
\item[($a_4$):] \emph{Restricting the ban of peanut products to certain flights is not enough.}
\end{description}
+ \begin{block}{Possible ranking}
+ $a_1 > a_2 \geq a_3 > a_4$?
+ \end{block}
\end{frame}
\subsection{About this work}
\begin{frame}
\frametitle{About this work}
+ \textbf{This paper covers the following topics:}
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \item Follow-up to the work of \cite{wachsmuth:2017a}
+ \item Evaluation of methods for determining relevant arguments
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \item Detailed analysis of PageRank for argument relevance
+ \item Intuitive content- and knowledge-based methods from the area of NLP
+ \end{itemize}
+ \end{itemize}
+ \begin{block}{In total}
+ We show how PageRank is not entirely sufficient to evaluate the relevance arguments.
+
+ Furthermore, we could show how the content- and knowledge-based methods performed significantly better.
+ \end{block}
\end{frame}
\ No newline at end of file
--
GitLab