团队协作中,因认知差异导致任务无法独立完成,本文提出新框架解析协作难题。
Collective Counterfactual Planning: Coordination, Consent, and Verification under Representational Constraints

- 基于投影到不同子空间的表示几何,建模团队成员的认知局限
- 揭示协同规划中可实现性与可验证性之间的根本矛盾
- 适合研究分布式系统、多智能体协作及可信决策的学者
团队常需完成个人无法独立规划、执行或验证的任务。本文提出集体反事实规划(CCP)形式化模型,其中每个代理的限制并非能力、知识或观测,而是表征几何:各代理仅通过将共同任务空间投影至自身特定子空间来感知状态、构想行动、同意操作并验证目标要求。达成合取目标并合法识别其完成,取决于四个环节:外生实施联盟,以及三个表征门控——构想、同意和任务相关验证资格。本文定义了集体反事实可解性(CCS)问题,区分几何可行性、可执行达成与已验证完成。结果揭示正负双重性:迭代跨代理接力可解锁单次计划聚合无法包含的解,但任何依赖于全队不可见子空间的目标要求均不可验证,即使轨迹偶然达成也无法有效完成。无记忆且经审计的同意分别约束行动方向与累积轨迹状态,二者互不支配。四步穷尽式有限视野求解方案在精确表示接力闭包下为完备且可靠;受限实施保持求解结果可靠,但未必完备。该模型为顺序相互赋能、执行者无法理解目的的步骤、专家边界强制分组及无法合法宣告完成的成果提供了统一几何解释。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Groups routinely complete projects that no single member can plan, execute, or verify alone. We propose a formal model of this phenomenon, Collective Counterfactual Planning (CCP), in which the binding limitation on each agent is neither capability, knowledge, nor observability, but representational geometry: each agent perceives the state, conceives moves, consents to actions, and certifies goal requirements only through a projection onto an agent-specific subspace of a common task space. Four gates jointly determine whether a team can reach a conjunctive goal and legitimately recognize that it has done so: the exogenous implementation coalitions required to perform each action, together with three representational gates -- conception, consent, and task-relative verification qualification. We define the Collective Counterfactual Solvability (CCS) problem, separating geometric feasibility, executable attainment, and validated completion. The results expose a positive-negative duality. Iterated cross-agent relay can unlock a solution that no one-shot pooling of individual plans contains, but any goal requirement depending essentially on the subspace dark to the entire team is unverifiable and therefore not validly completable, even when the trajectory accidentally attains it. Memoryless and audited consent further constrain different objects -- action directions versus cumulative trajectory states -- and neither dominates the other. A four-step exhaustive horizon-bounded solvability scheme is sound and complete under exact representation of the relay closure; restricted implementations remain sound on returned plans but need not be complete. The model gives one geometry for sequential mutual enabling, competent execution of steps whose purpose is invisible to the executor, forced sub-teaming at expertise boundaries, and completion that cannot be validly declared.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。