Variations on a Bayesian Theme: Comparing Bayesian Models of Referential Reasoning
- 934 Downloads
Recent developments in Bayesian experimental pragmatics have received much attention. The Rational Speech Act (RSA) model formalizes core concepts of traditional pragmatic theories quantitatively and makes predictions that fit empirical data nicely. In this paper, we analyze the RSA model and its relation to closely related game theoretic approaches, by spelling out its belief, goal and action components. We introduce some alternatives motivated from the game theoretic tradition and compare models incorporating these alternatives systematically to the original RSA model, using Bayesian model comparison, in terms of their ability to predict relevant empirical data. The result suggests that the RSA model could be adapted and extended to improve its predictive power, in particular by taking speaker preferences into account.
KeywordsReferential expressions Scalar implicature Pragmatic reasoning Referential game Bayesian pragmatics Rational speech-act theory Game-theoretic pragmatics Experimental pragmatics Bayesian analysis Model comparison
We are indebted to Judith Degen, Michael C. Frank, Noah D. Goodman and Daniel Lassiter, two anonymous reviewers, and the audience of the ESSLLI workshop “Bayesian Natural Language Semantics and Pragmatics” for stimulating feedback and discussion. Many thanks also to Henk Zeevat and Hans-Christian Schmitz for organizing mentioned workshop, and to Will Frager for help realizing our experiments. Michael Franke gratefully acknowledges financial support by NWO-VENI grant 275-80-004.
- Bergen, L., Goodman, N. D., & Levy, R. (2012). That’s what she (could have) said: How alternative utterances affect language use. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 120–125). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
- Degen, J., & Franke, M. (2012). Optimal reasoning about referential expressions. In S. Brown-Schmidt, J. Ginzburg, & S. Larsson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (SeineDial: SemDial 2012) (pp. 2–11). Paris: France.Google Scholar
- Frank, M. C., Goodman, N. D., Lai, P., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). Informative communication in word production and word learning. In N. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1228–1233). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
- Gatt, A., van Gompel, R. P. G., van Deemter, K., & Kramer, E. (2013). Are we Bayesian referring expression generators? In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1228–1233). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
- Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kramer, E., & van Deemter, K. (2012). Computational generation of referring expressions: A survey. Computational Linguistics, 38(1), 173–218. doi: 10.1162/coli_a_00088.
- Stalnaker, R. (2005). Saying and meaning, cheap talk and credibility. In A. Benz, G. Jäger, & R. van Rooij (Eds.), Game theory and pragmatics (pp. 83–100). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
- Stiller, A., Goodman, N. D., & Frank, M. C. (2011). Ad-hoc scalar implicature in adults and children. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2134–2139). Austin: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
- Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998). Reinforcement learning: An introduction. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Vandekerckhove, J., Matzke, D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (in press). Model comparison and the principle of parsimony. In J. Busemeyer, J. Townsend, Z. J. Wang, & A. Eidels (Eds.), Oxford handbook of computational and mathematical psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar