# Epistemic Graphs for Representing and Reasoning with Positive and Negative Influences of Arguments

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07489 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.07489/

## Key facts

- Cited by 14 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 21 Feb 2018.

## Built on by (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Strategic Argumentation Dialogues for Persuasion: Framework and Experiments Based on Modelling the Beliefs and Concerns of the Persuadee](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.11870/) (2021)
- [smProbLog: Stable Model Semantics in ProbLog for Probabilistic Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.00879/) (2023)
- [SMProbLog: Stable Model Semantics in ProbLog and its Applications in Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.01990/) (2021)
- [Forecasting Argumentation Frameworks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11590/) (2022)
- [Dynamic Epistemic Friction in Dialogue](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.10934/) (2025)
- [A Methodology for Incompleteness-Tolerant and Modular Gradual Semantics for Argumentative Statement Graphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.22209/) (2024)
- [Understanding Enthymemes in Argument Maps: Bridging Argument Mining and Logic-based Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.08648/) (2024)
- [Many-valued Argumentation, Conditionals and a Probabilistic Semantics for Gradual Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.07523/) (2022)
- [Some Options for Instantiation of Bipolar Argument Graphs with Deductive Arguments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.04372/) (2023)
- [Encoding Argumentation Frameworks to Propositional Logic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.07351/) (2025)
- [Toward a Graph-Theoretic Model of Belief: Confidence, Credibility, and Structural Coherence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.03465/) (2025)
- [Probabilistic Deduction: an Approach to Probabilistic Structured Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.00210/) (2022)
- [A Filtering-based General Approach to Learning Rational Constraints of Epistemic Graphs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.02918/) (2022)
- [Rejecting Arguments Based on Doubt in Structured Bipolar Argumentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.03286/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.