State Definition for Conflict Analysis with Four-valued Logic
This work addresses logical inconsistencies in decision-making systems for conflict analysis, though it appears incremental as it builds on existing graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR) frameworks.
The paper tackled the problem of ensuring logical consistency in conflict resolution models by proposing a state configuration method based on Belnap's four-valued logic, which prevents incorrect state setting and provides logical validity for varying analysis resolutions.
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.