Patent Application
20210019838
The present invention relates to a public object rechecking system, especially a public opinion system determining objects to be accepted or denied, according to objections to the objects.
In a freely expressing personal opinion environment (for example, internet), fake news is troublesome and difficult to avoid. Furthermore, identifying fake news is usually very expensive and time-consuming. To solve this problem, artificial intelligence is a current technology focus. However, artificial intelligence is difficult to determine the authenticity of an object (for example, news, or an internet article), because the authenticity determination is complicated. Artificial intelligence can only judge the authenticity based on simple known facts instead of logically reasoning; for example, the earth is spherical, sun rises in the east and sets in the west, two plus two equals four, etc.
When common readers read a publicly focused news, the related objections from some readers are usually ignored by others. Because, the common readers are not willing to take time to go through the discussion details, and there is usually no efficient determination process for the readers to judge the authenticity. Therefore, cyberbully happens more and more often in a global scale; even in some cases, it becomes offensive to cause a tragedy. A trustworthy public forum is very important for helping people to identify possible fake news.
Besides, please refer to
In view of the above, the present invention provides a public object rechecking system, for determining an object to be accepted or denied. In this system, discussion over objections is a key for determining the object to be accepted, wherein the objections are effectively converged into at least one objection tracking routes (for example, the tracking routes in
Further, the public object rechecking system of the present invention has a function of “question self-feeding and self-verifying”; that is, the system is capable of collecting questions from the object or objections, and verifying the answers by collecting corresponding answers from the users.
In one perspective of the present invention, a public object rechecking system is provided by including: a user identification unit, identifying a plurality of users for entering the system; an object collector, located on a server for collecting at least one object which is publicly focused; a user interface, configured to present the object to the identified users in a discussion block for collecting objections and corresponding discussions from the identified users to the object, and determining the object to be accepted or denied, according to the objections; and a bulletin, configured to announce the object determined to be accepted.
In one embodiment, the identified users log in the public object rechecking system by respective account identification, such as telephone number accounts, or social security numbers.
In one embodiment, the user interface is included in an application software, an electronic device, a webpage, a computer, or a multimedia tool.
In one embodiment, the object collector provides a first object weighting and a second object weighting, according to priority between a first object and a second object recommended by one of the identified users within a time period for presenting the objects in the user interface, wherein the first object weighting is higher than the second object weighting.
In one embodiment, the object is determined to be accepted or not, according to the objections (or the objections and corresponding discussion), which are validated by identified user's voting and corresponding discussions; or, the object is determined to be accepted or not, according to the objections (or the objections and corresponding discussion), which are validated by identified user's voting, corresponding discussions, and endorsement from expert users, who are a plurality of the identified users.
In one embodiment, the user interface provides a question bank, which comprises a predetermined-truth bank, a predetermined-false bank, and a to-determine bank, for respectively storing questions with predetermined-true descriptions, questions with predetermined-false descriptions, and questions with to-determine descriptions. In one embodiment, the user interface provides a test with questions from the predetermined-truth bank, the predetermined-false bank, and the to-determine bank, to the identified users. By answering the questions, the identified users could earn in-system currency or other merits.
In one embodiment, the identified users spend their in-system currency for collecting object, voting, providing objection, or providing support.
In one embodiment, the public object rechecking system collects the questions with to-determine descriptions, by extracting logical descriptions from the object, supports, or the objections. The logical descriptions are then included in the test for collecting corresponding answers from the identified users. When the true or false of the logical descriptions are determined according to the collected answers, the logical descriptions may be classified into the predetermined-truth bank or the predetermined-false bank.
In one embodiment, the public object rechecking system, further comprising a duration period, which starts from the user interface presenting the object, till the object determined to be accepted or denied.
For a better understanding of the above and other aspects of the present invention, the following detailed description of the embodiments with reference to the figures.
The objectives, technical details, features, and effects of the present invention will be better understood with regard to the detailed description of the embodiments below, with reference to the drawings.
In one perspective of the present invention, please refer to
In one embodiment, the identified users respectively have registered identification (hereinafter ID) information and phone number stored in the public object rechecking system. When the user applying for new ID in public object rechecking system, the system will send registering phone number to a telecom company, to confirm if the person had registered or not. If answer from the telecom company is yes, after confirming with account owner, a new account is activated after the old one is disabled. This telephone number account design can avoid double accounts of the same one user, and avoid a counterfeit account, without storing important personal information in the system. According to the present invention, not only the telephone number, but also other letters or numbers, can be applied as to identifying the ID (for example, the social security number) of the identified users.
Importantly, the object collector can be located on a server, and the user interface can be included in an application software, an electronic device, a webpage, a computer, or a multimedia tool.
In one embodiment, the object collector 102 collects the publicly focused object based on an internet discussion enthusiastic level, an internet reading enthusiastic level, and/or click rate. Or, the object collector 102 collects objects recommended by the identified users. The object includes article, information, and publication from the public. In one embodiment, the objects collecting can depend on the in-system currency spent by the identified users. For example, the identified user spending higher in-system currency, may have the priority for determining the collected object. If necessary, the aforementioned embodiments of collecting objects may not be operated separately, but in any combination of the aforementioned embodiments.
In one embodiment, when more of the identified users have a bias in favor of the objects of some specific topics, and the collected objects are determined only based on the majority decisions of the more identified users, other important objects voted by the fewer identified users are possibly ignored. The final collected objects do not conform to the principle of voting proportionality. In one embodiment, in order to avoid this deficiency, the present invention further provides a technique, wherein the object collecting can be determined according to a weighted score obtained by an increasing function or a decreasing function. In one embodiment, the function may have a settled characteristics in a concerned functional range. The concerned functional range corresponds to a predetermined range of a parameter in the function. For example, in the tables 2A, 2B, and 2C, the concerned functional range for the parameter n is between 0 and 9, and the function has the settled characteristics. For example, the increasing function can be in a relation of “fn(x)≥x”, wherein the integer n is a parameter for defining the nested function fn(x). For example, f2(x)=f(f(x)) . The decreasing function can be in a form of “F(x)≤x”.
In one embodiment, the increasing function or the decreasing function can be in a form of multiplying a function value on, to obtain scores for reweighting certain objects. And, the next object (s) are determined to be selected when the objects have larger scores. Two embodiments of the present invention are shown in following tables. In tables 1A and 1B, there are two groups of people (groups P and Q) voted on different 10 objects (totally 20, which is P1˜10 and Q1˜10) separately, and the objects with less “sequence” value will have priority when the voting counts (number of users voting the objects) are the same. Please notice that no matter how many times the minority group (Q) votes their objects, the voting counts by the majority group (P) are higher than the minority group (Q). That is, objects voted by the minority group (Q) have no chance to be selected to the discussion block 1031.
In one embodiment shown in tables 2A, 2B, and 2C, the voting weighting function is in a functional form of f(n−y)=2n−y, wherein variable n starts with 0; the variable y=number of objects which is both voted n specific identified user and selected to be presented. The calculation table includes three tables, and the tables 2B and 2C are continued tables of table 2A. In the tables 2A, 2B, and 2C, K=10 (number of objects to be presented in discussion block), Group (P) includes ninety users to vote an identical object in each of ten priorities, and Group (Q) includes ten users to vote another identical object in each of the ten priorities, wherein the other ten identical objects (by Group (Q)) are different from the ten identical objects (by Group (P)). In the tables 2A, 2B, and 2C , the function is (2n−y)×(number of voting users):
In tables 2A, 2B, and 2C, the score calculation function is an increasing function. The group (P) is an example of more identified users of 90 persons to vote for identical object in each priority, and the group (Q) is an example of fewer identified users with 10 persons to vote another identical object in each priority. For example, in table 2A, the second collected object P2 is determined according to the larger score 90 of group (P) (score 20 of the group (Q) is less), which is based on the score obtained in the first priority, after calculating the result of number of voted identified users multiplied by a function value. From the first collected object to the fourth collected object (P1 to P4), the scores of the group (P) are larger than the scores of the group (Q). However, the fifth collected object (Q1) is determined by group (Q), because the score 160 of group (Q) calculated after collecting the fourth object is larger than the score 90 of group (P). In tables 2A, 2B, and 2C, the number of the collected objects voted by group (P) is seven (collected objects P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, and P7), and the number of the collected objects voted by group (Q) is three (collected objects Q1, Q2, and Q3). That is, even though the more identified users vote the same objects in each round, the fewer identified users can still have chances to determine some collected objects into the discussion block.
Tables 3A, 3B, and 3C illustrate one embodiment of a decreasing function including F(y)=2−y, in a score calculation obtained by multiplying the F(y) function values the number of voted identified users.
In the tables 3A, 3B and 3C, a user voting status of the more identified user group (P) and fewer identified user group (Q) , is the same as in the tables 2A, 2B, and 2C. Please refer to the scores of the tables 2A, 2B, and 2C, wherein the scores are increasing together with more collected objects are determined. Differently, the scores of tables 3A, 3B and 3C, are decreasing together with more collected objects are determined. Importantly, the number of the collected objects voted by group (P) is seven (collected objects P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, and P7), and the number of the collected objects voted by group (Q) is three (collected objects Q1, Q2, and Q3). That is, even though the more identified users (group (P)) vote the same objects, the fewer identified users can still have chances to determine some collected objects into the discussion block.
In the aforementioned embodiment, the scores for selecting objects are valid for a limited period. After the limited period, the score calculation is reset and the priority parameter is initialized to be 0, to restart the operation illustrated in
The object volume reweighting can be an objective way to balance the volume of minority and majority groups. By changing the reweighting function, modifying volume ratio by topic is possible. In one embodiment, one of the identified user can vote one or at least two objects within a time period (for example, one day, two days, three days, one week, etc.). However, it is preferable that the at least two objects voted by one identified user are separately weighted that the importance of the objects can be distinguished according to the identified user before presenting to the user interface 103. For example, the object collector 102 provides a first object weighting and a second object weighting, according to a sequence of a first object and a second object voted by one of the identified users within the time period for presenting the objects in the user interface, wherein the first object weighting is higher than the second object weighting. For example, the first/second object weightings can be respectively 60%/40%, 70%/30%, or other weighting ratios. The object collector 102 can deter mine which object is to be presented according to these weighting ratios voted to the object. Further, when the one of the identified user votes three objects within the time period, the first/second/third object weightings can be respectively 40%/30%/30%, 50%/30%/20%, 60%/25%/15%, 70%/20%/10%, or other weighting ratios.
Please refer to
Please refer to
However, based on the original color set combination illustrate in (A-C)”. The support S21 may be agreed in the determining unit 1032, and the conclusion is obtained that the object 2 is accepted.
Please refer to (A-C)”. The support S21 is agreed by voting in the determining unit 1032. After the interactive dialectic between the aforementioned object and support, the accepted opinion is “color(A-B) is color 1”, which is the same as the object 2. Meanwhile, with the interactive dialectic between the aforementioned objects and supports, the accepted opinion gradually reduces a scope of the set difference (A-C) to the accepted opinion (
Please refer to C, and color(D) is color 2, not all of color (A-C) is color 1”. In the determining unit 1032, the objections O31 agreed, such that the object 3 “all of color (A-C) is color 1 ” is denied.
Please refer to C, and color (D) is color 2, not all of color (A-C) is color 1”. In the determining unit 1032, the objections O31 is agreed, such that the object 3 “all of color (A-C) is color 1” is denied. In short, after these interactive dialectic between the aforementioned objects and supports, the object 3 is denied. Meanwhile, with the iteration through objects and supports, the accepted opinion also reduces an accepted scope of the set corresponding to the object 3.
However, the operation of object rechecking can be in a different way. Please refer to
In the embodiments of
In one embodiment,
In one embodiment, the user interface 103 provides a question bank (
In one embodiment, the identified users can also spend their in-system currency for challenging the accepted/denied result of the objects, the agreed/disagreed result of the objections, or the agreed/disagreed result of the supports, by providing the opinions (objections, support, or any kinds of comment or feedback).
In one embodiment, the public object rechecking system 100 collects the questions with the to-determine descriptions, by extracting logical descriptions from the object, the supports, or the objections. The logical descriptions are then included in the test for collecting corresponding answers from the identified users. When the answers to the logical descriptions are determined according to the collected answers (for example, the majority of the collected answers from the identified users are true, false, unknown, or no response). The logical descriptions with relative majority positive answers can be classified into the predetermined-truth bank, the logical descriptions with relative majority negative answers into the predetermined-false bank, and the logical descriptions with unclear or no answers into the to-examine bank. Therefore, the public object rechecking system 100 of the present invention further provides a function of “question self-feeding and self-verifying”. In one embodiment, the step of extracting logical descriptions from the object, the supports, or the objections, may be operated by AI (artificial intelligence) technology. Or, the step of classifying the logical descriptions with answers into the predetermined-false bank or the predetermined-truth bank, may be operated by AI technology. The AI technology may extract logical descriptions from the object, or collect real-time feedback from user/online resources.
In one embodiment, the public object rechecking system, further comprising a duration period, which starts from the user interface presenting the object, till the object determined to be accepted or denied. Because timeline is usually very important for clarifying the focused object, the duration period is very important to provide the accepted object in time.
In one perspective, the operation in the user interface 103 can be also illustrated as
In one embodiment, the voting in the determining unit 1032, can be weighted by the in-system currency spent by the identified users. For example, when one of the identified users sends a higher in-system currency, his/her vote may be weighted higher according to spent in-system currency. This higher weighting may be used to determine the priority of collecting object (in the object collector 102), the vote in the determining unit 1032, or discussion in the discussion block 1031.
Regarding the obtaining decision in the present invention, the public object rechecking system can briefed into several rules:
1. no “partial truth” in the accepted object. When there is any objection corresponding to the object is determined to be accepted (or not overcome), the whole description of the object is determined to be denied. Importantly, any one of the identified users can choose a part of the object to oppose.
2. any objection, support, object, discussion or decision can be a new object that any of the identified users can oppose to, by providing the opposing objection.
3. when the opposition is raised based on informal fallacy, the section of the object related to this opposition can be isolated from the discussion of this object, into another independent new object.
4. when the users answer the questions from the to-determine bank, the answers are statistically determined to be predetermined-true or predetermined-false. Further, if necessary, the answers can be weighted according to the credit of the users answering the questions.
5. one identified user can choose another user as the expert user for the object.
6. for trustworthy and convenient user management, any of the identified user can be confidential to other users in the system, and the account can be modified easily. No one can have more than one account and the determining unit can easily contact the user when receiving information from the determining unit.
7. not only the conclusion, but any objection, any support, and any object can be discussed based on different opinions.
8. for avoiding malicious answers and reducing the impact of malicious answers, the user can individually distinguish any malicious content mixed in the object, objection, or support. Further, the user who does the mixing can be fined by reducing the credit of the in-system currency.
In one embodiment, before (or after) voting to agree the object, the identified users need to pass a common knowledge test for weighting the voting from the identified users. In one embodiment, the common knowledge test can be an internet robot identification application, such as a series of questions for image interpretations, or the qualification test based on the common knowledge for the skilled persons in the art. For example, the qualification test ca be used to filter the qualified users to do voting based on the specific field art. For example, when one of the identified users does not pass the common knowledge test, the voting can be ignored, weighted at a lower level, or the weighting of voting of this identified user is negative, to avoid misleading of the decision. In one embodiment, the common knowledge test can include the questions from the predetermined-truth bank, the predetermined-false bank, or the to-examine bank. Further, the common knowledge test has a function of verifying the questions from the to-examine bank to be the questions of the predetermined-truth bank or the predetermined-false bank, by mixing the questions from the to-examine bank with the questions of the predetermined-truth bank and the predetermined-false bank, and classifying the questions from the to-exam the bank according to the obtained relative majority positive/negative answers from the identified users. In one embodiment, this question classifying process can be operated by AI technology.
The present invention has been described in considerable detail with reference to certain preferred embodiments thereof. It should be understood that the description is for illustrative purpose, not for limiting the scope of the present invention. Those skilled in this art can readily conceive variations, combinations and modifications within the spirit of the present invention. For example, if necessary, the rechecking process according to the present invention can have a mechanism for the identified users to challenge the results of the objects, the objections, or the support, determined by the determining unit. That is, the results of the objects, the objections, or the support can be rechecked again, if necessary.
