Probabilistic Argumentation with Epistemic Extensions and Incomplete
  Information
  Abstract argumentation offers an appealing way of representing and evaluating
arguments and counterarguments. This approach can be enhanced by a probability
assignment to each argument. There are various interpretations that can be
ascribed to this assignment. In this paper, we regard the assignment as
denoting the belief that an agent has that an argument is justifiable, i.e.,
that both the premises of the argument and the derivation of the claim of the
argument from its premises are valid. This leads to the notion of an epistemic
extension which is the subset of the arguments in the graph that are believed
to some degree (which we defined as the arguments that have a probability
assignment greater than 0.5). We consider various constraints on the
probability assignment. Some constraints correspond to standard notions of
extensions, such as grounded or stable extensions, and some constraints give us
new kinds of extensions.
