Epistemic Graphs for Representing and Reasoning with Positive and
  Negative Influences of Arguments
  This paper introduces epistemic graphs as a generalization of the epistemic
approach to probabilistic argumentation. In these graphs, an argument can be
believed or disbelieved up to a given degree, thus providing a more
fine--grained alternative to the standard Dung's approaches when it comes to
determining the status of a given argument. Furthermore, the flexibility of the
epistemic approach allows us to both model the rationale behind the existing
semantics as well as completely deviate from them when required. Epistemic
graphs can model both attack and support as well as relations that are neither
support nor attack. The way other arguments influence a given argument is
expressed by the epistemic constraints that can restrict the belief we have in
an argument with a varying degree of specificity. The fact that we can specify
the rules under which arguments should be evaluated and we can include
constraints between unrelated arguments permits the framework to be more
context--sensitive. It also allows for better modelling of imperfect agents,
which can be important in multi--agent applications.
