State Definition for Conflict Analysis with Four-valued Logic

TL;DR

This paper introduces a four-valued logic approach to defining states in conflict analysis models, enhancing logical consistency and analysis validity when dealing with incomplete or conflicting information.

Contribution

It proposes a GMCR stability analysis framework utilizing Belnap's four-valued logic for more robust conflict state representation.

Findings

Prevents incorrect state setting with insufficient information.

Provides logical validity to conflict analysis methods.

Enables analysis resolution adjustment based on information coarseness.

Abstract

We examined a four-valued logic method for state settings in conflict resolution models. Decision-making models of conflict resolution, such as game theory and graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR), assume the description of a state to be the outcome of a combination of strategies or the consequence of option selection by the decision-makers. However, for a framework to function as a decision-making system, unless a clear definition of the task of placing information out of an infinite world exists, logical consistency cannot be ensured, and thus, the function may be incomputable. The introduction of paraconsistent four-valued logic can prevent incorrect state setting and analysis with insufficient information and provide logical validity to analytical methods that vary the analysis resolution depending on the degree of coarseness of the available information. This study proposes a GMCR stability analysis with state configuration based on Belnap's four-valued logic.