================================================================ PART I: EMPIRICAL DATA ================================================================
Experimental Design #
Experiment 1: Speaker Production #
- 83 dyads on Amazon MTurk
- 2×2 design: occlusions (present/absent) × distractor (present/absent)
- DV: Number of words in referring expression
Experiment 2: Listener Comprehension #
- 116 dyads
- Scripted vs unscripted speaker condition
- Replication of @cite{keysar-etal-2003} materials
Key Empirical Findings #
1. Speakers increase informativity with occlusions (Exp 1) #
- Occlusion effect: +1.3 words (t(120.3) = 8.8, p < .001)
- Distractor effect: +0.6 words (t(206) = 5.7, p < .001)
- Significant interaction (b = -0.49, t(1742) = 4.1, p < .001)
2. Scripted utterances cause more errors (Exp 2) #
- Scripted condition: 51% critical errors
- Unscripted condition: 20% critical errors
- χ²(1) = 43, p < .001
3. Listeners adapt over time #
- Error rate decreases across trials: z = 2.6, p < 0.01
- From 43% on first critical trial to 30% on fourth trial
4. Speaker informativity predicts listener accuracy #
- Correlation: ρ = -0.81, 95% CI = [-0.9, -0.7]
- More informative utterances → fewer errors
Visual perspective state in director-matcher task
- ownPrivate : PerspectiveState
- partnerPrivate : PerspectiveState
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Trial type in Experiment 1
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
All trial types in 2×2 design
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Mean words produced in each condition
Equations
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.exp1MeanWords { occlusionPresent := false, distractorPresent := false } = 15 / 10
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.exp1MeanWords { occlusionPresent := false, distractorPresent := true } = 21 / 10
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.exp1MeanWords { occlusionPresent := true, distractorPresent := false } = 28 / 10
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.exp1MeanWords { occlusionPresent := true, distractorPresent := true } = 31 / 10
Instances For
Occlusion effect size (distractor-absent): +1.3 words
Equations
Instances For
Distractor effect size (occlusion-absent): +0.6 words
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Occlusion increases feature mention rates (distractor-absent)
Equations
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.featureRates_noOcclusion_noDistractor = { shape := 99 / 100, color := 25 / 100, texture := 5 / 100 }
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.featureRates_occlusion_noDistractor = { shape := 99 / 100, color := 50 / 100, texture := 65 / 100 }
Instances For
Speaker condition in Experiment 2
- scripted : SpeakerCondition
- unscripted : SpeakerCondition
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Critical error rate by condition
Equations
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.criticalErrorRate Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.SpeakerCondition.scripted = 51 / 100
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.criticalErrorRate Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.SpeakerCondition.unscripted = 20 / 100
Instances For
Error rate by trial number (adaptation over time)
Equations
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.errorRateByTrial 1 = 43 / 100
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.errorRateByTrial 2 = 38 / 100
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.errorRateByTrial 3 = 34 / 100
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.errorRateByTrial 4 = 30 / 100
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.errorRateByTrial x✝ = 30 / 100
Instances For
Listeners adapt: errors decrease over trials
Informativity: how well utterance fits target vs distractor
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Informativity difference: target fit - distractor fit
Equations
Instances For
Scripted utterances: roughly equal fit (by design)
Equations
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.scriptedInformativity = { targetFit := 50 / 100, distractorFit := 52 / 100 }
Instances For
Unscripted utterances: much better target fit
Equations
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.unscriptedInformativity = { targetFit := 75 / 100, distractorFit := 25 / 100 }
Instances For
Unscripted speakers are more informative
Informativity-error correlation: ρ = -0.81
Equations
Instances For
The paper identifies these key qualitative predictions:
- Speakers hedge against known unknowns: Increase informativity with occlusions
- Division of labor depends on expectations: Optimal effort = f(partner's expected effort)
- Listeners adapt to speaker behavior: Update beliefs about speaker's effort over time
- Intermediate weights are optimal: When perspective-taking is costly, partial weighting is best
- speakersHedgeUnknowns : KeyPrediction
- divisionDependsOnPartner : KeyPrediction
- listenersAdaptOverTime : KeyPrediction
- intermediateWeightsOptimal : KeyPrediction
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
All key predictions from the paper
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Critical item from @cite{keysar-etal-2003} replication
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The 8 critical items used in Experiment 2
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Number of critical items
================================================================ PART II: RSA MODEL ================================================================
Two RSAConfig instances formalize the reference game:
- cfgEgo (egocentric): 3 visible objects, no hidden. Belief-based S1.
- cfgAsym (asymmetric): 3 visible + 1 hidden object. Latent variable encodes the hidden object's match profile (which features match target). Prior reflects P(match) = 1/4 per feature (uniform over 4 values).
Utterance semantics derive from predicate modification (Part III):
each feature word is an intersective adjective, composed via predMod.
The 3 visible objects in the example display.
target: shape=0, color=0, texture=0 d1: shape=1, color=0, texture=0 (shares color+texture with target) d2: shape=2, color=1, texture=1 (differs on all features)
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Utterance cost: number of features mentioned
Equations
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.Utt.null.cost = 0
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.Utt.s.cost = 1
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.Utt.c.cost = 1
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.Utt.t.cost = 1
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.Utt.sc.cost = 2
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.Utt.st.cost = 2
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.Utt.ct.cost = 2
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.Utt.sct.cost = 3
Instances For
Does utterance apply to an entity with given feature-match profile? For each feature the utterance mentions, the entity must match the target.
Instances For
Egocentric literal meaning: does utterance apply to visible object? Target matches on all features. d1 differs only on shape. d2 differs on all.
Equations
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.egoMeaning u Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.VisObj.target = true
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.egoMeaning u Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.VisObj.d1 = u.applies false true true
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.egoMeaning u Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.VisObj.d2 = u.applies false false false
Instances For
Asymmetric literal meaning: includes hidden object behind occlusion.
The hidden object's match profile is the latent variable l = (matchShape, matchColor, matchTexture).
Each feature independently matches target with P = 1/4.
Equations
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.asymMeaning l u Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.AsymObj.target = true
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.asymMeaning l u Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.AsymObj.d1 = u.applies false true true
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.asymMeaning l u Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.AsymObj.d2 = u.applies false false false
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.asymMeaning l u Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.AsymObj.hidden = u.applies l.1 l.2.1 l.2.2
Instances For
Egocentric RSA: reference game among 3 visible objects. Belief-based scoring (S1 score = L0^α), α = 2, uniform priors.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Asymmetric RSA: reference game with hidden object behind occlusion. Latent = (matchShape, matchColor, matchTexture) for hidden object. Prior: each feature independently matches target with probability 1/4, encoded as unnormalized weights (1 for match, 3 for non-match).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
================================================================ PART III: COMPOSITIONAL GROUNDING ================================================================
The utterance semantics derive from predicate modification (H&K Ch. 4):
⟦α β⟧ = λx. ⟦α⟧(x) ∧ ⟦β⟧(x)
Each feature mention (shape, color, texture) is an intersective adjective
that denotes a characteristic function of type e → t:
- ⟦square⟧ = λx. shape(x) = target.shape
- ⟦blue⟧ = λx. color(x) = target.color
- ⟦checked⟧ = λx. texture(x) = target.texture
This is exactly Semantics.Montague.Modification.predMod applied iteratively.
Shape predicate: matches target's shape (only target has shape=0)
Equations
Instances For
Color predicate: matches target's color (target + d1 have color=0)
Equations
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.MontaguGrounding.colorPred Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.VisObj.target = true
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.MontaguGrounding.colorPred Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.VisObj.d1 = true
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.MontaguGrounding.colorPred Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.VisObj.d2 = false
Instances For
Texture predicate: matches target's texture (target + d1 have texture=0)
Equations
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.MontaguGrounding.texturePred Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.VisObj.target = true
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.MontaguGrounding.texturePred Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.VisObj.d1 = true
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.MontaguGrounding.texturePred Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.VisObj.d2 = false
Instances For
Compositional utterance denotation via intersective predicate modification.
Each mentioned feature contributes an intersective adjective, composed
left-to-right via predMod.
Instances For
Grounding theorem: egoMeaning equals the compositional derivation.
The ad-hoc semantics match Montague intersective predicate modification.
The RSA meaning function is grounded in compositional semantics
================================================================ PART IV: PREDICTIONS VIA rsa_predict ================================================================
Core RSA predictions verified via rsa_predict. The egocentric model captures
the no-occlusion case; the asymmetric model captures occlusion.
In the egocentric model, the listener is equally confident about the target whether hearing shape-only or full description. Both uniquely identify target among visible objects, so additional features add nothing.
Paper Prediction 1: Full description produces higher L1 posterior for target than shape-only under asymmetry. Hidden objects can match individual features (P(match_shape) = 1/4), so more specific utterances are more reliably informative.
Shape+color also beats shape-only: each additional feature narrows the set of possible hidden distractors.
When hidden object matches target's shape (but not color or texture), S1 prefers full description over shape-only. Shape-only fails to distinguish target from hidden; full description succeeds.
When hidden matches no features, S1 is indifferent: both shape-only and full description have L0 = 1 for target.
Even under asymmetry, L1 correctly identifies target over d1 (which differs in shape).
================================================================ PART V: EXTENSIONS (Mixture Model & Resource-Rational Analysis) ================================================================
The mixture model (Eq. 5) and resource-rational optimization (Eq. 10-11) sit
outside the standard RSA loop. These are paper-specific extensions, defined
in ℝ and grounded in RSAConfig.L0.
Key equations from the paper:
- Eq. 2: U^asym_S1(u;o,C) = Σ_{o_h} P(o_h) log P_L0(o|u,C ∪ {o_h}) − cost(u)
- Eq. 3: U^ego_S1(u;o,C) = log P_L0(o|u,C) − cost(u)
- Eq. 5: U^mix_S1 = w_S · U^asym + (1−w_S) · U^ego
- Eq. 10: U_{S_RR}(w_S) = E_{P(w_L)}[P_L0(o|u*,C,w_L)] − β × w_S
The mixture operates in log-space (over utilities, not probabilities). This means the mixture speaker uses a weighted geometric mean of L0 values, not an arithmetic mean: exp(w_S · E[log L0^asym] + (1−w_S) · log L0^ego).
Parameters: α = 2, cost(u) = 0.03 (uniform, cancels in S1 normalization).
Egocentric L0 success rate: P_L0^ego(target | u).
Grounded directly in cfgEgo.L0.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Asymmetric L0 success rate: E_l[P_L0^asym(target | u, l)]. Marginalizes the literal listener's success over hidden object profiles, weighted by the latent prior.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Expected log-L0 under the asymmetric model (Eq. 2, utility component): E_h[log P_L0(target | u, C ∪ {h})]. This is inside the expectation, so by Jensen's inequality asymLogInfR(u) ≤ log(asymInfR(u)).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Mixture speaker utility (Eq. 5): U^mix(u; w_S) = w_S · E_h[log P_L0^asym(target|u,h)] + (1−w_S) · log P_L0^ego(target|u) Uniform cost (0.03) omitted: it cancels in S1 normalization.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Mixture S1 score: P_S1^mix(u | target, w_S) ∝ exp(α · U^mix(u; w_S)). Paper Eq. 1 with the mixture utility from Eq. 5.
Equations
Instances For
The full model marginalizes over listener perspective-taking weight w_L.
The simplified model (Eqs 2–5) treats w_L as fixed at 1. The full model
(Eqs 7–9) has the speaker consider a range of listener weights, and the
resource-rational analysis (Eq. 10) measures accuracy averaged over w_L.
**Mixture L0** (Eq. 8): P_{L_0}^{mix}(target|u, l, w_L) =
w_L · P_{L_0}^{asym}(target|u, l) + (1−w_L) · P_{L_0}^{ego}(target|u).
At w_L = 0, the listener ignores hidden objects. At w_L = 1, the listener
accounts for all potential hidden distractors.
**Marginalized S1** (Eq. 9): the speaker's utility integrates over w_L,
discretized to 5 grid points {0, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 1} with uniform weight.
**Accuracy** (Eq. 10): since listener accuracy is linear in w_L,
E_{uniform w_L}[accuracy] = (egoInfR + asymInfR) / 2.
Mixture L0 accuracy: probability the mixture listener at weight w_L correctly identifies the target, given hidden object profile l (Eq. 8).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Asymmetric speaker utility at a specific listener weight (Eq. 7). U^asym(u; w_L) = Σ_l P(l)/Z · log(P_L0^mix(target|u, l, w_L))
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Mixed speaker utility at specific (w_S, w_L) (Eq. 8).
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
W_L-marginalized speaker utility (Eq. 9 inside the exp). Discretized: 5 uniform grid points at w_L ∈ {0, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 1}.
Equations
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.mixUtilityMarg u wS = 1 / 5 * ∑ k : Fin 5, Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.mixUtilityFull u wS (↑↑k / 4)
Instances For
Full S1 score with w_L marginalization (Eq. 9).
Equations
Instances For
Listener accuracy averaged over uniform w_L (for Eq. 10). Since accuracy(u, w_L) = w_L·asymInfR(u) + (1−w_L)·egoInfR(u) is linear in w_L, the expectation under uniform P(w_L) is the midpoint.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Full expected accuracy (Eq. 10) with w_L marginalization. Uses the w_L-marginalized S1 for speaker production and the w_L-averaged listener accuracy for evaluation.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Full resource-rational utility (Eqs 10–11). U_RR(w_S) = ExpAccuracy_full(w_S) − β · w_S
Equations
Instances For
At w_S = 0, the simplified mixture utility reduces to egocentric log-L0.
At w_S = 1, the simplified mixture utility reduces to asymmetric expected log-L0.
Paper prediction (β = 0): When perspective-taking is free, full PT (w_S = 1) achieves higher expected accuracy than no PT (w_S = 0). The asymmetric speaker produces more specific utterances, improving listener accuracy. (Paper Figure 2, rightmost point of β = 0 curve.)
Paper prediction (high β): When perspective-taking is costly, the cost term β · w_S dominates, making w_S = 0 preferable to w_S = 1. (Paper Figure 2, β = 0.5 curve.)
Interior optimum limitation: The paper's central result (§2.4, Figure 2) is that at moderate cost (β = 0.2), an intermediate weight w*_S ≈ 0.36 outperforms both extremes.
Our 3+1 object reference game is too simple to produce this effect.
Shape alone uniquely identifies the target among visible objects
(egoInfR .s = 1), so the egocentric baseline accuracy is ≈97%.
The marginal accuracy gain from perspective-taking is ≈0.3%, far
below the β = 0.2 cost. The interior optimum requires a richer display
where egocentric accuracy is substantially lower, creating a larger
incentive for specific utterances that disambiguate from hidden objects.
Verified: rrUtilityFull 0 2 β > rrUtilityFull 1 2 β for all
tested β ≥ 1/50 (even with the full w_L-marginalized model).
Listener's belief about speaker's perspective-taking weight. Over time, listeners update their expectation of w_S based on observed utterance informativity.
Instances For
Initial uniform belief: E[w_S] = 1/2
Equations
- Phenomena.Reference.Studies.HawkinsGweonGoodman2021.initialBeliefs = { wS_expectation := 1 / 2, observations := 0 }
Instances For
Update beliefs after observing utterance informativity. Short/uninformative utterances → lower w_S estimate; long/informative utterances → higher w_S estimate.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
After seeing short utterances, listener expects lower w_S
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Paper prediction (@cite{hawkins-gweon-goodman-2021} §2.4.1): Listeners infer low speaker effort from under-informative utterances.
Optimal listener weight: compensate for low speaker effort. When the speaker uses low w_S, the listener should increase their own perspective-taking to compensate.
Equations
Instances For
Paper prediction (@cite{hawkins-gweon-goodman-2021} §2.4.1): Listener increases effort when speaker decreases theirs.