Reasoning in Reference Games: Individual- vs. Population-Level Probabilistic Modeling

Recent advances in probabilistic pragmatics have achieved considerable success in modeling speakers’ and listeners’ pragmatic reasoning as probabilistic inference. However, these models are usually applied to population-level data, and so implicitly suggest a homogeneous population without individual differences. Here we investigate potential individual differences in Theory-of-Mind related depth of pragmatic reasoning in so-called reference games that require drawing ad hoc Quantity implicatures of varying complexity. We show by Bayesian model comparison that a model that assumes a heterogenous population is a better predictor of our data, especially for comprehension. We discuss the implications for the treatment of individual differences in probabilistic models of language use.

[1]  Laurence R. Horn From if to iff: Conditional perfection as pragmatic strengthening , 2000 .

[2]  Ting Qian,et al.  Rapid Expectation Adaptation during Syntactic Comprehension , 2013, PloS one.

[3]  W. Estes The problem of inference from curves based on group data. , 1956, Psychological bulletin.

[4]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Nonliteral understanding of number words , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  David Lewis Convention: A Philosophical Study , 1986 .

[6]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Some arguments are probably valid: Syllogistic reasoning as communication , 2014, CogSci.

[7]  V. Crawford,et al.  Fatal Attraction: Focality, Naivete, and Sophistication in Experimental "Hide-and-Seek" Games , 2007 .

[8]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Knowledge and implicature: Modeling language understanding as social cognition , 2012, CogSci.

[9]  Arndt Riester,et al.  Proceedings of Sinn Und Bedeutung 13 , 2009 .

[10]  I. J. Myung,et al.  Toward an explanation of the power law artifact: Insights from response surface analysis , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[11]  Duane G. Watson,et al.  The effects of age on the strategic use of pitch accents in memory for discourse: a processing-resource account. , 2012, Psychology and aging.

[12]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Formalizing the Pragmatics of Metaphor Understanding , 2014, CogSci.

[13]  D. Rubin,et al.  Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences , 1992 .

[14]  J. McGrane Stevens’ forgotten crossroads: the divergent measurement traditions in the physical and psychological sciences from the mid-twentieth century , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[15]  John R. Anderson The Adaptive Character of Thought , 1990 .

[16]  Andrew G. Barto,et al.  Reinforcement learning , 1998 .

[17]  Yuki Kamide Learning individual talkers’ structural preferences , 2012, Cognition.

[18]  W. Estes,et al.  Risks of drawing inferences about cognitive processes from model fits to individual versus average performance , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[19]  R. Kirk CONVENTION: A PHILOSOPHICAL STUDY , 1970 .

[20]  Michael Franke,et al.  Signal to act : game theory in pragmatics , 2009 .

[21]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Talker-Specific Generalization of Pragmatic Inferences based on Under- and Over-Informative Prenominal Adjective Use , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[22]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  Model Comparison and the Principle of Parsimony , 2015 .

[23]  John N. Williams,et al.  Are generalised scalar implicatures generated by default? An on-line investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences , 2006, Cognition.

[24]  Michael Franke,et al.  of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society Title Typical use of quantifiers : A probabilistic speaker model Permalink , 2014 .

[25]  J. Dickey,et al.  The Weighted Likelihood Ratio, Sharp Hypotheses about Chances, the Order of a Markov Chain , 1970 .

[26]  T. Hedden,et al.  What do you think I think you think?: Strategic reasoning in matrix games , 2002, Cognition.

[27]  Robert van Rooij,et al.  Explaining Quantity Implicatures , 2012, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[28]  Martha W. Alibali,et al.  Gesture in Spatial Cognition: Expressing, Communicating, and Thinking About Spatial Information , 2005, Spatial Cogn. Comput..

[29]  Peter Stone,et al.  Reinforcement learning , 2019, Scholarpedia.

[30]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  The effect of speaker-specific information on pragmatic inferences , 2011 .

[31]  Daniel Rothschild,et al.  GAME THEORY AND SCALAR IMPLICATURES , 2013 .

[32]  Dave F. Kleinschmidt,et al.  Robust speech perception: recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel. , 2015, Psychological review.

[33]  Michael Franke,et al.  Meaning and Use of Gradable Adjectives: Formal Modeling Meets Empirical Data , 2014, CogSci.

[34]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[35]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis , 1979 .

[36]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  The philosophy of Bayes’ factors and the quantification of statistical evidence , 2016 .

[37]  P. Dekker,et al.  Questions in dynamic semantics , 2007 .

[38]  Joseph Farrell Meaning and Credibility in Cheap-Talk Games , 1993 .

[39]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Predicting Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Games , 2012, Science.

[40]  Kees van Deemter,et al.  Are we Bayesian referring expression generators , 2013 .

[41]  M. Lee How cognitive modeling can benefit from hierarchical Bayesian models. , 2011 .

[42]  Noah D. Goodman,et al.  Context, scale structure, and statistics in the interpretation of positive-form adjectives , 2013 .

[43]  D. Barr,et al.  Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. , 2013, Journal of memory and language.

[44]  S. Brown-Schmidt,et al.  The role of executive function in perspective taking during online language comprehension , 2009, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[45]  Shravan Vasishth,et al.  What is the scanpath signature of syntactic reanalysis , 2011 .

[46]  L Robert Slevc,et al.  Saying what's on your mind: working memory effects on sentence production. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[47]  J. Morgan,et al.  Cheap Talk , 2005 .

[48]  G. Jäger,et al.  Rationalizable Signaling , 2014 .

[49]  R. Rooij,et al.  Optimal assertions, and what they implicate. A uniform game theoretic approach , 2007 .

[50]  Michael Franke,et al.  Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation , 2011 .

[51]  Michael Franke,et al.  Optimal Reasoning About Referential Expressions , 2012 .

[52]  Henk Zeevat,et al.  Bayesian Natural Language Semantics and Pragmatics , 2015 .

[53]  Estes Wk The problem of inference from curves based on group data. , 1956 .

[54]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Ad-hoc scalar implicature in adults and children , 2011, CogSci.

[55]  Michael Franke,et al.  UC Merced Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society , 2013 .

[56]  H. Barlow Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information: David Marr. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1982. pp. xvi + 397 , 1983 .

[57]  Corien Bary,et al.  Temporal anaphora across and inside sentences: The function of participles , 2011 .

[58]  Brady Clark,et al.  Communicating with Cost-based Implicature: a Game-Theoretic Approach to Ambiguity , 2012 .

[59]  D. Fox Free Choice and the Theory of Scalar Implicatures , 2007 .

[60]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  What Do You Think I Think You Think about It , 2014 .

[61]  U. Sauerland,et al.  Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional Semantics , 2007 .

[62]  N. Taatgen,et al.  What Eye Movements Can Tell about Theory of Mind in a Strategic Game , 2012, PloS one.

[63]  H. Jeffreys,et al.  Theory of probability , 1896 .

[64]  Michael Franke,et al.  Variations on a Bayesian Theme: Comparing Bayesian Models of Referential Reasoning , 2015 .

[65]  R. Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. , 1960 .

[66]  Prashant Parikh,et al.  A Game-Theoretic Account of Implicature , 1992, TARK.

[67]  H. V. VAN TONGEREN [The use of language]. , 1986, Tijdschrift voor diergeneeskunde.

[68]  Keith E. Stanovich,et al.  Individual differences in rational thought. , 1998 .

[69]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: A tutorial on the Savage–Dickey method , 2010, Cognitive Psychology.

[70]  B. Love,et al.  The myth of computational level theory and the vacuity of rational analysis , 2011, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[71]  Benjamin Spector Scalar Implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean Reasoning , 2004 .

[72]  Edward Gibson,et al.  The Processing and Acquisition of Reference , 2011 .

[73]  M. Tribus,et al.  Probability theory: the logic of science , 2003 .

[74]  Terry Regier,et al.  Testing a rational account of pragmatic reasoning: The case of spatial language , 2014, CogSci.

[75]  Siobhan Chapman Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[76]  M. Rabin Communication between Rational Agents , 1990 .

[77]  V. Crawford Lying for Strategic Advantage: Rational and Boundedly Rational Misrepresentation of Intentions , 2003 .

[78]  Michael Franke,et al.  Pragmatic Back-and-Forth Reasoning , 2014 .

[79]  Lewis Bott,et al.  Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences , 2004 .

[80]  E. Davis,et al.  How Robust Are Probabilistic Models of Higher-Level Cognition? , 2013, Psychological science.

[81]  Yo Matsumoto The conversational condition on horn scales , 1995 .

[82]  Michael Franke,et al.  Probabilistic pragmatics, or why Bayes’ rule is probably important for pragmatics , 2016 .

[83]  Brady Clark,et al.  Overspecification and the Cost of Pragmatic Reasoning about Referring Expressions , 2014, CogSci.

[84]  Arnim von Stechow,et al.  Term answers and contextual change , 1984 .

[85]  M. Lee,et al.  Bayesian Cognitive Modeling: A Practical Course , 2014 .

[86]  Martyn Plummer,et al.  JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling , 2003 .

[87]  M. Sidman A note on functional relations obtained from group data. , 1952, Psychological bulletin.

[88]  Colin Camerer,et al.  A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games , 2004 .

[89]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Verbal working memory predicts co-speech gesture: Evidence from individual differences , 2014, Cognition.

[90]  D. McFadden Quantal Choice Analysis: A Survey , 1976 .

[91]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Iterated Dominance and Iterated Best-Response in Experimental P-Beauty Contests , 1998 .

[92]  Robert van Rooij,et al.  Pragmatic Meaning and Non-monotonic Reasoning: The Case of Exhaustive Interpretation , 2006 .

[93]  Sascia Pavan,et al.  Scalar implicatures and iterated admissibility , 2013 .

[94]  Michael K. Tanenhaus,et al.  Processing Scalar Implicature: A Constraint-Based Approach , 2015, Cogn. Sci..

[95]  Benjamin Spector 10: Scalar Implicatures: Exhaustivity and Gricean Reasoning , 2007 .

[96]  Anton Benz,et al.  Errors in Pragmatics , 2012, J. Log. Lang. Inf..