arXiv：cs.AI· Yukiko Kato·· 3 小时前
GMCR 中的认知扰动：状态保持行动、四值评估与能力意图之辨
Epistemic Disturbance in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: State-Preserving Actions, Four-Valued Assessments, and the Distinction between Capability and Intention
AI 导读
作者在冲突解决图模型（GMCR）中引入“状态保持行动”，将状态扩展为决策者的认知状态：物理移动改变物理状态，状态保持行动只改变认知状态，不作为则是没有转移。研究基于作者此前的四值 GMCR 扩展证明，支持某移动的证据只能使感知移动成为可能、反对证据只能将其禁用，四种约简算子中有两种会忽略一类证据，且矛盾评估在单调累积下具有吸收性。
正文
Abstract:In the graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR), a decision maker (DM) either moves the conflict to another state or does nothing. The basic definitions leave inaction implicit, so every action that leaves the state unchanged is treated as doing nothing. Yet announcements, exercises, leaks and selective disclosures are neither moves nor inaction: they leave the state unchanged but change what other DMs believe about which moves are available and which moves others would want to make. We introduce such state-preserving actions by augmenting states with the DMs' epistemic states: a physical move changes the physical state, a state-preserving action changes only the epistemic state, and inaction is the absence of a transition. Actions generate evidence through observer-specific interpretation maps. Building on a four-valued extension of GMCR from the author's earlier work, which separates evidence for and against, we show that evidence for a move can only enable perceived moves and evidence against can only disable them, that two of the four reduction operators ignore one kind of evidence, and that contradictory assessments are absorbing under monotone accumulation. With the monotonicity of stability in move sets, this fixes the direction in which any action moves a DM's stability judgements and characterizes when actions can enable provocation or deterrence. Capability assessments affect all sanction-based stability concepts, and on the DM's own side also Nash stability, whereas intention assessments affect only sequential stability. Hedging between two candidate types weakly expands or shrinks an observer's sequentially stable set according to how it reads contradiction. In the 1995 DVD format negotiation, general metarationality cannot distinguish its phases, since the computer industry group could always sanction; sequential stability, which asks whether it would, can.
| Subjects: | Computer Science and Game Theory (cs.GT); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Multiagent Systems (cs.MA) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2610.11690 [cs.GT] |
| (or arXiv:2610.11690v1 [cs.GT] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.11690 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) |
Submission history
From: Yukiko Kato [view email]
[v1]
Thu, 8 Oct 2026 11:00:34 UTC (29 KB)
来源：arXiv：cs.AI · arxiv.org