Add first version for dataset chapter

slides/dataset.tex

 \section{Dataset}
-\subsection{Dataset}
+
+\subsection{Corpus}
 \begin{frame}
-	This is the second slide \cite{wachsmuth:2017a}.
+	\frametitle{Corpus}
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item For our study, we used the Webis-ArgRank2017 dataset from Wachsmuth et
+		      al.\footnote[1]{H. Wachsmuth, B. Stein, and Y. Ajjour "PageRank" for Argument
+			      Relevance}
+		\item In this dataset Wachsmuth et al. constructed a ground-truth argument graph
+		      as well as benchmark for argument ranking from this argument graph
+	\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+	\frametitle{Corpus}
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item The data are originally collected from the Argument Web and stored in an
+		      argument graph
+		\item The Argument Web was the largest existing argument database with a
+		      structured argument corpora at that time
+	\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+	\frametitle{Corpus}
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item In the resulting argument graph G = (A, E)
+		      \begin{itemize}
+			      \item Each node represents $a_i \in A$ an argument consisting of a conclusion
+			            $c_i$ and a not-empty set of premises $P_i$ $\Rightarrow$ $a_i = \langle c_i, P_i \rangle$
+			      \item An edge $(a_j, a_i)$ is given if the conclusion $a_j$ is used as a premise
+			            of $a_i$
+			      \item Consequently, $P_i = \{c_1,...,c_k\}, k \geq 1$
+		      \end{itemize}
+	\end{itemize}
+
+	\begin{figure}
+		\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{bilder/DatasetLocalView2.png}
+		\caption{Argument Graph from Argument Web}
+	\end{figure}
+\end{frame}
+
+
+\subsection{Benchmark Argument Ranking}
+\begin{frame}
+	\frametitle{Benchmark Argument Ranking}
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item To create the benchmark dataset, Wachsmuth et al. only kept arguments
+		      from the graph that fulfill their requirements
+		      \begin{itemize}
+			      \item If a conclusion was part in more than one argument, it was kept
+			      \item Furhtermore, Wachsmuth et al. removed all nodes that do not contain a
+			            real claim
+			      \item Additionally, an argument:
+			            \begin{itemize}
+				            \item has to be a valid-counter argument
+				            \item must be based on reasonalb premises
+				            \item must  allow a logic interference to be drawn
+			            \end{itemize}
+		      \end{itemize}
+	\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+\begin{frame}
+	\frametitle{Benchmark Argument Ranking}
+	\begin{itemize}
+		\item The resulting benchmark dataset consist of 32 conclusions which
+		      participated in 110 arguments
+		\item These 110 arguements were ranked by seven experts from computational
+		      linguistics and information retireval
+		\item Each argument was ranked by how much each of its premises contributes to
+		      the acceptance or rejection of the conlusion
+	\end{itemize}
+\end{frame}
+
+
+\subsection{Evaluation Method}
+\begin{frame}
+	\frametitle{Evaluation Method}
+	\begin{itemize}
+\item To evaluate the agreement between the experts and to ensure comparability
+were than used Kendall's $\tau$
+\item Kendall $\tau$ is correlation coefficient that indicates the agreement
+between two quantities with respect to a property
+\begin{itemize}
+\item In this case, this means the agreement between two experts with respect to
+an argument
+\item -1 signifies a complete disagreement and +1 a complete agreement
+\end{itemize}
+\item The mean over all experts for the evaluation of the benchmark is 0.36
+	\end{itemize}
 \end{frame}
\ No newline at end of file