Docs / Studies / Studies.HawkinsEtAl2025

Relevant Answers to Polar Questions

Hawkins, R. D., Tsvilodub, P., Bergey, C. A., Goodman, N. D. & Franke, M. (2025). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 380(1932)

The PRIOR-PQ model of Hawkins et al. 2025 explains the answers to polar questions by the questioner's decision problem. A base respondent gives a random true and safe response, one that resolves the question for anyone who knows it. The questioner asks the question whose answers most raise the value of its decision problem, and a pragmatic respondent infers the decision problem from the question and trades informativity against relevance to it.

Implementation notes

  • The questioner hearing a response and the respondent hearing a question are RSA.listeners of the base respondent and of the questioner, so a response no world produces leaves the zero measure; the questioner and the pragmatic respondent are Kernel.softmax kernels.
  • The paper defines safety as "not knowing the answer to q entails not knowing whether r", under which its safe example "Yes, we take Visa" to "Do you take Visa or Mastercard?" would be unsafe. Safe takes the reading "not knowing r" that the examples force, and applies to a mention apart from the polar answer it accompanies ("No, but we take American Express").
  • The displayed respondent utility puts the questioner's updated belief first in the divergence. The file follows the prose, which puts the respondent's belief first, since only that order enforces truthfulness; in the displayed order a respondent who knows the world, as in the case study, finds every response short of a world-identifying one infinitely uninformative.
  • The paper replaces R0 by the truth-only R0' in the questioner's update as the respondent models it, since under R0 the update is undefined at unsafe responses. The display primes only the informativity term; the file uses R0' for relevance too.
  • The softmax value of a decision problem is not convex in the belief, so a question can have negative value of information.

TODO

  • The predicted rates of exhaustive answers, highest after a polar question about an unavailable card, then after the general question, then after a polar question about an available card, which depend on the fitted parameters.
  • The value comparison behind the general question, that after "yes" the decision problem of a questioner holding American Express has lower value than after the exhaustive list.
  • The iced tea and blanket case studies, with the elicited utilities.

References

Safe answers (§2a)

L74–77

The model

L81–93
L95–107
L111–113
L115–117

The base respondent (§2a)

L127–129
L131–133
L135
L137
L139–141
L143–145
L149–152
L154–158
L160–166
L168–170
L177–180

Between two worlds of equal prior where a response is true and safe, the questioner favours the one with fewer true and safe alternatives (§2b).

theorem Model.listener_R0_real_lt_iffL182–197
{W : Type u_1} {Q : Type u_2} {R : Type u_3} {A : Type u_4} {D : Type u_5} [MeasurableSpace W] [MeasurableSpace R] (m : Model W Q R A D) [Fintype W] [MeasurableSingletonClass W] [Finite R] [MeasurableSingletonClass R] {d : D} [MeasureTheory.IsFiniteMeasure (m.prior d)] {q : Q} {r : R} {w₁ w₂ : W} (hp : (m.prior d) {w₁} = (m.prior d) {w₂}) (hpos : (m.prior d) {w₁} ≠ 0) (h₁ : r ∈ m.trueSafe w₁ q) (h₂ : r ∈ m.trueSafe w₂ q) :
((RSA.listener (m.prior d) ⇑(m.R0 q)) r).real {w₁} < ((RSA.listener (m.prior d) ⇑(m.R0 q)) r).real {w₂} ↔ (m.trueSafe w₂ q).ncard < (m.trueSafe w₁ q).ncard

Built from , ,

The questioner (§2b)

L207–210
L212–214
L216–223
L228–232

The question score is the value of information of the question under the policy value, plus the value of the prior, less the expected cost.

theorem Model.questionScore_eq_valueOfInformationL234–246
{W : Type u_1} {Q : Type u_2} {R : Type u_3} {A : Type u_4} {D : Type u_5} [MeasurableSpace W] [MeasurableSpace R] (m : Model W Q R A D) [Fintype A] [Fintype W] [MeasurableSingletonClass W] [Finite R] [MeasurableSingletonClass R] (p : Params) [StandardBorelSpace W] [Nonempty W] (d : D) [MeasureTheory.IsFiniteMeasure (m.prior d)] (q : Q) :
m.questionScore p d q = ProbabilityTheory.valueOfInformation (value (m.utility d) p.αℵ) (m.R0 q) (m.prior d) + value (m.utility d) p.αℵ (m.prior d) - p.wc * ∫ (r : R), m.cost r ∂(m.prior d).bind ⇑(m.R0 q)

Built from , , , ,

L251–253
L255–256
L258–260
L262–263

The pragmatic respondent (§2c)

L276–278
L280–281

Between decision problems of equal prior, the respondent comes to favour the one under which the question was the likelier, so a question signals the goal.

theorem Model.goalPosterior_real_lt_iffL283–291
{W : Type u_1} {Q : Type u_2} {R : Type u_3} {A : Type u_4} {D : Type u_5} [MeasurableSpace W] [MeasurableSpace R] (m : Model W Q R A D) [Fintype A] [Fintype W] [MeasurableSingletonClass W] [Fintype R] [MeasurableSingletonClass R] (p : Params) [MeasurableSpace Q] [Fintype Q] [MeasurableSingletonClass Q] [MeasurableSpace D] [Fintype D] [MeasurableSingletonClass D] (πD : MeasureTheory.Measure D) [MeasureTheory.IsFiniteMeasure πD] (q : Q) {d₁ d₂ : D} (hp : πD {d₁} = πD {d₂}) (hpos : πD {d₁} ≠ 0) :
((m.goalPosterior p πD) q).real {d₁} < ((m.goalPosterior p πD) q).real {d₂} ↔ ((m.questioner p) d₁).real {q} < ((m.questioner p) d₂).real {q}

Built from , , ,

L293–303
L305–309
L311–313

Action relevance alone does not enforce truthfulness (§2c), since at β = 1 the respondent gives every response, false ones included, positive probability.

theorem Model.respondent_apply_singleton_ne_zero_of_beta_eq_oneL315–323
{W : Type u_1} {Q : Type u_2} {R : Type u_3} {A : Type u_4} {D : Type u_5} [MeasurableSpace W] [MeasurableSpace R] (m : Model W Q R A D) [Fintype A] [Fintype W] [MeasurableSingletonClass W] [Fintype R] [MeasurableSingletonClass R] (p : Params) [MeasurableSpace Q] [Fintype Q] [MeasurableSingletonClass Q] [MeasurableSpace D] [Fintype D] [MeasurableSingletonClass D] (πD : MeasureTheory.Measure D) (hβ : p.β = 1) (πW : MeasureTheory.Measure W) (q : Q) (r : R) :
((m.respondent p πD πW) q) {r} ≠ 0

Built from , ,

When β < 1, a respondent never gives a response false at a world it considers possible (§2c).

theorem Model.respondent_truthfulL325–341
{W : Type u_1} {Q : Type u_2} {R : Type u_3} {A : Type u_4} {D : Type u_5} [MeasurableSpace W] [MeasurableSpace R] (m : Model W Q R A D) [Fintype A] [Fintype W] [MeasurableSingletonClass W] [Fintype R] [MeasurableSingletonClass R] (p : Params) [MeasurableSpace Q] [Fintype Q] [MeasurableSingletonClass Q] [MeasurableSpace D] [Fintype D] [MeasurableSingletonClass D] (πD : MeasureTheory.Measure D) [MeasureTheory.IsFiniteMeasure πD] (hβ : p.β < 1) (hα : 0 < p.αR) {πW : MeasureTheory.Measure W} {q : Q} {r : R} {d : D} (hd : πD {d} ≠ 0) {w : W} (hw : πW {w} ≠ 0) (hf : w ∉ m.response r) :
((m.respondent p πD πW) q) {r} = 0

Built from , ,

Case study 1: credit cards (§3a)

L347–352
L372
L381–387
L395–398
L400–411
L419–420
L447–448

In (3) (Examples.ex3), for a questioner holding the card asked about, yes has the same decision value as the exhaustive list.

theorem yes_value_eq_exhaustiveL453–480
(C w : Finset Card) (hC : Card.amex ∈ C) (hw : Card.amex ∈ w) (αℵ : ℝ) :

Built from , , ,