The paper introduces the notion of an epistemic argumentation framework (EAF) as a means to integrate the beliefs of a reasoner with argumentation. Intuitively, an EAF encodes the beliefs of an agent who reasons about arguments. Formally, an EAF is a pair of an argumentation framework and an epistemic constraint. The semantics of the EAF is defined by the notion of an ω-epistemic labelling set, where ω is complete, stable, grounded, or preferred, which is a set of ω-labellings that collectively satisfies the epistemic constraint of the EAF. The paper shows how EAF can represent different views of reasoners on the same argumentation framework. It also includes representing preferences in EAF and multi-agent argumentation.

Dung's abstract theory of argumentation has become established as a general framework for various species of non-monotonic reasoning, and reasoning in the presence of conflict. A Dung framework consists of arguments related by attacks, and the extensions of a framework, and so the status of arguments, are defined under different semantics. Developments of Dung's work have also defined argument labellings as an alternative way of characterising extensions, and dialectical argument game proof theories for establishing the status of individual arguments. Recently, Extended Argumentation Frameworks extend Dung's theory so that arguments not only attack arguments, but attacks themselves. In this way, the extended theory provides an abstract framework for principled integration of meta-level argumentation about defeasible preferences applied to resolve conflicts between object level arguments. In this paper we formalise labellings and argument games for a selection of Dung's semantics defined for the extended frameworks.