<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W00-1406">
  <Title>Towards the Generations.of Rebul;tals in a Bayesian Argumentation System</Title>
  <Section position="8" start_page="45" end_page="45" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
6 Conclusion and Future Work
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> We have offered a mechanism for generating rebuttals to a user's rejoinders in the context of arguments generated by a Bayesian argumentation system. We have implemented three main argumentation strategies: refuting the rejoinder, strengthening the argument goal, and dismissing the user's line of reasoning. For each strategy we have identified applicability conditions, proposed a procedure which determines the information to be included in a rebuttal, and defined a presentation schema.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> An interesting area of future research pertains to the omission of information from an argument.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> There are different types of information which may be omitted from an argument, such as (1) easily inferred information and information which has a small effect on the argument; (2) information which is required for representational reasons, but makes the resulting argument more confusing; (3) probabilistic information which, although correct, makes the resulting argument more tedious; and (4) previously stated information. Our previous research deals with the first type of information (Zukerman et al., 1998), and in this paper we have identified some conditions for the omission of previously stated information when expressing the relative impact of a proposition. Another factor that affects the onfission of information is the trade off between accuracy and conciseness. The omission of information affects the belief in the conclusion(s) presented in an argument. Stating beliefs that differ from a system's own beliefs may cause the system to appear inconsistent or even deceitful, while presenting all the relevant factors may yield a verbose argument. A mechanism which addresses these issues will support the generation of better arguments and rebuttals.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> The evaluation of Chis. xeseareh,encompassesseveral components: (1) the WWW interface, (2) the path-finding mechanism, and (3) the rebuttal-generation mechanism. A preliminary evaluation of 5\Ve do not handle the &amp;quot;attack the claim that the evidence lcives support for the main point&amp;quot; strategy, as this involves inferring Conditional Probability Matrices for the user model, which is outside the scope of this research. the path-finding mechanism has yielded encouraging results (Zuke~man e~ al.,: 2000).: Two.types of evaluation are envisaged for the rebuttal-generation mechanism. A whole-system evaluation, where users interact freely with BIAS, may be used to determine whether users are satisfied with the system as a whole. In contrast, a specific evaluation of rebuttals would be restricted to showing users rejoinderrebuttal pairs (after showing an initial argument), and eliciting the users' reactions regarding the appropriateness of the rebuttals.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>