From c6f16b0f34dbc07e122c21dd36e87eb0b93b4ff9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: feger <marc.feger@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 11:44:42 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Refactor results.tex and add table
---
slides/results.tex | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/slides/results.tex b/slides/results.tex
index 93e2560..9a5fcca 100644
--- a/slides/results.tex
+++ b/slides/results.tex
@@ -1,17 +1,57 @@
\section{Results}
\begin{frame}
\begin{figure}
+ \frametitle{Evaluation of PageRank}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{bilder/PageRankComparison.png}
- \caption{Development of the perception regarding the argument relevance induced
-by PageRank regarding all possible aggregations. CPR, NetworkX and NetworkX
-using Scipy were plotted against by Wachsmuth et al. the result obtained for different $\alpha$ values, which regulates the influence of linking the arguments.}
+ \caption{Direct comparison of the different PageRank against the approach of \cite{wachsmuth:2017a}.}
\end{figure}
\end{frame}
\begin{frame}
+ \frametitle{Baseline Evaluation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{bilder/PairwiseResultComparison.png}
- \caption{Direct comparison of all baseline values reported by Wachsmuth et al. with all results obtained in this paper.}
+ \caption{Direct comparison of all baseline values reported by \cite{wachsmuth:2017a} with all results obtained in this paper.}
\end{figure}
+\end{frame}
+\begin{frame}
+ \frametitle{Detailed Results}
+ \begin{table}[hbp!]
+ \centering
+ \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
+ \begin{tabular}{llrrrcrrrcrrrcrrrcrrr}
+ \toprule
+ \multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{\#}} &
+ \multirow{3}{*}{\textbf{Approach}} &
+ \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{(a) Minimum}}& &
+ \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{(b) Average}} & &
+ \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{(c) Maximum}} & &
+ \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{(d) Sum}} & &
+ \multicolumn{3}{c}{\textbf{(e) Best results}} \\
+ \cline{3-5} \cline{7-9} \cline{11-13} \cline{15-17} \cline{19-21} & & $\tau$ & \textit{best} & \textit{worst} & & $\tau$ & \textit{best} & \textit{worst} & & $\tau$ & \textit{best} & \textit{worst} & & $\tau$ & \textit{best} & \textit{worst} & & $\tau$ & \textit{best} & \textit{worst}\\
+ \midrule
+ \small 1 & PageRank & 0.01 & 8 & 6 & & 0.02 & 9 & 7 & & 0.11 & 8 & 6 & & 0.28 & 11 & 5 & & 0.28 & 11 & 5 \\
+ \small 2 & Frequency & -0.10 & 2 & 8 & & -0.03 & 3 & 9 & & -0.01 & 2 & 8 & & 0.10 & 6 & 8 & & 0.10 & 6 & 8 \\
+ \small 3 & Similarity & -0.13 & 4 & 11 & & -0.05 & 5 & 11 & & 0.01 & 6 & 10 & & 0.02 & 6 & 10 & & 0.02 & 6 & 10 \\
+ \small 4 & Sentiment & 0.01 & 6 & 7 & & 0.11 & 9 & 4 & & 0.12 & 6 & 4 & & 0.12 & 9 & 4 & & 0.12 & 9 & 4 \\
+ \small 5 & Most premises & n/a & n/a & n/a & & n/a & n/a & n/a & & n/a & n/a & n/a & & 0.19 & 3 & 3 & & 0.19 & 3 & 3 \\
+ \small 6 & Random & n/a & n/a & n/a & & n/a & n/a & n/a & & n/a & n/a & n/a & & 0.00 & 5 & 7 & & 0.00 & 5 & 7 \\
+ \midrule
+ \small 7 & SNN & 0.12 & 10 & 6 & & 0.24 & 11 & 5 & & 0.31 & 12 & 5 & & 0.30 & 13 & 5 & & 0.31 & 13 & 5 \\
+ \small 8 & GWP & \textbf{0.22} & 12 & 5 & & \textbf{0.28} & 13 & \textbf{3} & & \textbf{0.39} & \textbf{14} & \textbf{2} & & \textbf{0.47} & \textbf{16} & \textbf{1} & & \textbf{0.47} & \textbf{16} & \textbf{1} \\
+ \small 9 & GWOP & -0.06 & 5 & 9 & & 0.00 & 6 & 7 & & 0.14 & 8 & 6 & & 0.20 & 8 & 4 & & 0.20 & 8 & 4 \\
+ \small 10 & EWP & 0.03 & 6 & 9 & & 0.08 & 7 & 8 & & 0.11 & 8 & 8 & & 0.28 & 9 & 5 & & 0.28 & 9 & 5 \\
+ \small 11 & EWOP & -0.04 & 5 & 9 & & 0.03 & 6 & 8 & & 0.07 & 7 & 8 & & 0.23 & 9 & 6 & & 0.23 & 9 & 6 \\
+ \small 12 & BWP & -0.09 & 6 & 9 & & -0.02 & 7 & 8 & & 0.05 & 9 & 8 & & 0.24 & 10 & 5 & & 0.24 & 10 & 5 \\
+ \small 13 & BWOP & -0.06 & 6 & 9 & & -0.01 & 7 & 8 & & 0.07 & 9 & 8 & & 0.26 & 10 & 5 & & 0.26 & 10 & 5 \\
+ \small 14 & MKBM & 0.10 & 5 & 7 & & 0.08 & 13 & 6 & & 0.24 & 12 & 8 & & 0.34 & 11 & 9 & & 0.34 & 13 & 6 \\
+ \small 15 & AKBM & 0.15 & \textbf{14} & \textbf{4} & & 0.26 & \textbf{14} & 4 & & 0.38 & 11 & 7 & & 0.40 & 13 & 7 & & 0.40 & 14 & 4 \\
+ \bottomrule
+ \end{tabular}
+ }
+ \vspace*{0mm}
+ \caption{Comparison of the approaches of \cite{wachsmuth:2017a} (1-6) with those used in this study (7-15). For each aggregation (a-d) the average agreement $\tau$ and the cases in which the respective approach performed best or worst over the 32 conclusions of the 110 arguments are given. (e) shows the best results of an aggregation.}
+ \label{tab:results}
+ \end{table}
\end{frame}
\ No newline at end of file
--
GitLab