Documentation

Studies.ChampollionAlsopGrosu2019

Champollion, Alsop and Grosu (2019): Free Choice Disjunction as a Rational Speech Act #

Free choice, by which You may take an apple or a pear conveys that each fruit may be taken by itself, does not follow from modal logic, and a speaker who prefers informative utterances never has reason to choose the disjunction over a disjunct. The paper adds semantic uncertainty: two interpretation functions, the classical (6) and the exhaustified (7), over which the pragmatic listener reasons jointly with states and utterances (8). Under the exhaustified function a bare disjunct risks the reading only that fruit, so at the free-choice states Only One and Any Number the disjunction is the speaker's safe choice (speaker_or_onlyOne_exh, speaker_prefers_a_at_onlyA_exh), and the listener inverts the avoidance: hearing or, each free-choice state outweighs each other state at the paper's α = 100 (fci_derived, Table 5), and the free-choice states already carry the majority at α = 2 (fci_majority_low_alpha).

Exclusivity, that not both may be taken, tracks the prior instead. Under a prior favouring Any Number the listener hearing or ranks Any Number above every other state, at every rationality (anyNumber_of_prior, Table 6), which is the paper's account of why exclusivity, unlike free choice, is cancelable. Under negation the negated disjunction is unambiguous and maximally strong, so the listener assigns no mass to the states at which free choice would survive (no_fci_under_negation, Table 9). The variants without the conjunctive alternative (Tables 7–8) are not formalized.

Main results #

References #

States, utterances, interpretation functions (Table 2, (5)–(7)) #

The permission states of Table 2 split Franke's All True into Any Number and Only Both.

Instances For
    @[instance_reducible]
    Equations
    Equations
    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
    Instances For
      @[instance_reducible]
      Equations
      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

      The four utterances (5).

      Instances For
        @[instance_reducible]
        Equations
        Equations
        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
        Instances For
          @[instance_reducible]
          Equations
          • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

          An interpretation function is classical modal logic or its exhaustification.

          Instances For
            @[instance_reducible]
            Equations
            Equations
            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
            Instances For
              @[instance_reducible]
              Equations
              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
              @[instance_reducible]
              Equations
              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
              @[instance_reducible]
              Equations
              • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

              The extension of each utterance under each interpretation function.

              Equations
              Instances For
                @[simp]
                theorem ChampollionAlsopGrosu2019.mem_sem {i : Interp} {u : Utterance} {w : FCState} :
                w ∈ sem i u ↔ interpMeaning i u w

                Exhaustification only strengthens.

                The classical disjunction is true everywhere — maximally uninformative.

                The exhaustified disjunction excludes exactly Only Both.

                The exhaustified disjunct singles out exactly Only A — the risk the speaker avoids.

                The model (8) #

                @[reducible, inline]
                noncomputable abbrev ChampollionAlsopGrosu2019.literal (μ : MeasureTheory.Measure FCState) (i : Interp) :
                ProbabilityTheory.Kernel Utterance FCState

                The literal listener under an interpretation function (8a) conditions the state prior on the meaning of the utterance.

                Equations
                Instances For
                  @[reducible, inline]
                  noncomputable abbrev ChampollionAlsopGrosu2019.speaker (μ : MeasureTheory.Measure FCState) (i : Interp) (α : ℝ) :
                  ProbabilityTheory.Kernel FCState Utterance

                  The speaker under an interpretation function (8b) knows the state and addresses that function's literal listener.

                  Equations
                  Instances For
                    @[reducible, inline]
                    noncomputable abbrev ChampollionAlsopGrosu2019.listener (α : ℝ) :
                    ProbabilityTheory.Kernel Utterance (FCState × Interp)

                    The pragmatic listener (8c) at a uniform prior over states and interpretation functions inverts the speaker of each function, and her first marginal is her belief about the state.

                    Equations
                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                    Instances For
                      theorem ChampollionAlsopGrosu2019.speaker_or_onlyOne_exh {α : ℝ} (hα : 0 < α) :
                      ((speaker (ProbabilityTheory.uniformOn Set.univ) Interp.exhaustified α) FCState.onlyOne) {Utterance.or_} = 1

                      Under the exhaustified function at Only One, or is the only true utterance, so the speaker produces it with certainty at every rationality (§3.3).

                      theorem ChampollionAlsopGrosu2019.speaker_or_anyNumber_exh {α : ℝ} (hα : 0 < α) :
                      ((speaker (ProbabilityTheory.uniformOn Set.univ) Interp.exhaustified α) FCState.anyNumber) {Utterance.or_} = 1

                      Under the exhaustified function at Any Number, or is the only true utterance.

                      theorem ChampollionAlsopGrosu2019.speaker_or_onlyBoth_exh {α : ℝ} (hα : 0 < α) :
                      ((speaker (ProbabilityTheory.uniformOn Set.univ) Interp.exhaustified α) FCState.onlyBoth) {Utterance.or_} = 0

                      Under the exhaustified function at Only Both, or is false.

                      theorem ChampollionAlsopGrosu2019.speaker_prefers_a_at_onlyA_exh {α : ℝ} (hα : 0 < α) :
                      ((speaker (ProbabilityTheory.uniformOn Set.univ) Interp.exhaustified α) FCState.onlyA).real {Utterance.or_} < ((speaker (ProbabilityTheory.uniformOn Set.univ) Interp.exhaustified α) FCState.onlyA).real {Utterance.a}

                      Under the exhaustified function at Only A the speaker prefers the bare disjunct to the disjunction at every rationality, the avoidance mechanism.

                      Hearing or at the paper's α = 100, the listener ranks each free-choice state, Only One and Any Number (the paper's 0.5 each), above each of Only A, Only B, and Only Both (each ≈ 0). This derives free choice (Table 5).

                      At α = 2 the free-choice states still carry the majority of the posterior given or (the paper's "only 70%").

                      Prior sensitivity (Table 6) #

                      The prior enters the literal listener (8a) and the pragmatic listener (8c) alike.

                      These prior weights favour Any Number, 12 against 1 for each other state (75%).

                      Equations
                      Instances For
                        noncomputable def ChampollionAlsopGrosu2019.priorB :
                        MeasureTheory.Measure FCState

                        The state prior.

                        Equations
                        Instances For
                          noncomputable def ChampollionAlsopGrosu2019.jointPriorB :
                          MeasureTheory.Measure (FCState × Interp)

                          The joint prior, the interpretation function drawn uniformly.

                          Equations
                          Instances For
                            noncomputable def ChampollionAlsopGrosu2019.listenerB (α : ℝ) :
                            ProbabilityTheory.Kernel Utterance (FCState × Interp)

                            The pragmatic listener at the biased prior.

                            Equations
                            • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                            Instances For
                              theorem ChampollionAlsopGrosu2019.anyNumber_of_prior {α : ℝ} (hα : 0 < α) {w : FCState} (hw : w ≠ FCState.anyNumber) :
                              ((listenerB α) Utterance.or_).fst.real {w} < ((listenerB α) Utterance.or_).fst.real {FCState.anyNumber}

                              Exclusivity tracks the prior (Table 6). With 75% of the prior on Any Number, the listener hearing or ranks Any Number above every other state at every rationality, since under the exhaustified function or is produced there with certainty and no other state has a comparable prior.

                              No free choice under negation (§4, Table 9) #

                              The states of the negation model.

                              Instances For
                                @[instance_reducible]
                                Equations
                                Equations
                                • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                Instances For
                                  @[instance_reducible]
                                  Equations
                                  • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

                                  The negated utterances (10).

                                  Instances For
                                    @[instance_reducible]
                                    Equations
                                    Equations
                                    • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                    Instances For
                                      @[instance_reducible]
                                      Equations
                                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                      @[instance_reducible]
                                      Equations
                                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                      @[instance_reducible]
                                      Equations
                                      • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.

                                      The extensions of the negation model.

                                      Equations
                                      Instances For
                                        @[simp]
                                        theorem ChampollionAlsopGrosu2019.mem_negSem {i : Interp} {u : NegUtterance} {w : NegState} :
                                        w ∈ negSem i u ↔ negMeaning i u w

                                        The negated disjunction is unambiguous, true exactly at Neither under both functions.

                                        @[reducible, inline]
                                        noncomputable abbrev ChampollionAlsopGrosu2019.negListener (α : ℝ) :
                                        ProbabilityTheory.Kernel NegUtterance (NegState × Interp)

                                        The listener of the negation model.

                                        Equations
                                        • One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
                                        Instances For
                                          theorem ChampollionAlsopGrosu2019.no_fci_under_negation {α : ℝ} (hα : 0 < α) {p : NegState × Interp} (hp : p.1 ≠ NegState.neither) :

                                          Hearing you may not take an apple or a pear, the listener assigns no mass to any state other than Neither, in particular none to Only A and Only B, where a free-choice reading of the negated disjunction would be true. There is no free choice under negation (Table 9).