发表机构
Lynx Technologies Inc.; Institute of Science Tokyo（Lynx科技有限公司; 东京科学大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
该研究针对冲突解决图模型（GMCR）引入状态保持行动，结合四值扩展区分证据类型，明确能力与意图评估对稳定性概念的不同影响，并在1995年DVD格式谈判中验证序列稳定性可区分谈判阶段。
AI 中文摘要
在冲突解决图模型（GMCR）中，决策者（DM）要么将冲突转移至另一状态，要么不采取行动。基本定义将不作为隐含处理，因此所有不改变状态的行动都被视为不作为。然而，公告、演习、泄露和选择性披露既非转移也非不作为：它们不改变状态，但会改变其他决策者对可用转移以及其他决策者想要采取的转移的认知。我们通过在状态中加入决策者的认知状态来引入这类状态保持行动：物理转移改变物理状态，状态保持行动仅改变认知状态，而不作为则是无转移的情况。行动通过特定于观察者的解释映射生成证据。基于作者早期工作中对GMCR的四值扩展（该扩展区分支持与反对的证据），我们证明支持某一转移的证据仅能启用感知到的转移，反对的证据仅能禁用这些转移；四个归约算子中有两个会忽略其中一类证据；矛盾评估在单调累积下具有吸收性。结合稳定性在转移集合中的单调性，这确定了任何行动改变决策者稳定性判断的方向，并刻画了行动何时能启用挑衅或威慑。能力评估会影响所有基于制裁的稳定性概念，以及决策者自身的纳什稳定性，而意图评估仅影响序列稳定性。根据观察者对矛盾的解读，在两种候选类型之间进行权衡会弱地扩展或缩小其序列稳定集合。在1995年DVD格式谈判中，一般元理性无法区分其阶段，因为计算机行业集团总能实施制裁；而询问是否会实施制裁的序列稳定性则可以区分。
英文摘要
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.
