The computational costs of recipient design and intention recognition in communication

Expanding the Space of Cognitive Science - Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, CogSci 2011

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 465-470

  Blokpoel, Mark ^a   Kwisthout, Johan ^b   Wareham, Todd ^c   Haselager, Pim ^a   Toni, Ivan ^a   van Rooij, Iris ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^c MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND   (Canada)

Author keywords

abduction; Bayesian network; communication; inference; NP hard; recipient design; simulation; tractable

Indexed keywords

ABDUCTION; BAYESIA N NETWORKS; COMPUTATIONAL COSTS; COMPUTATIONAL LOADS; INFERENCE; INTENTION RECOGNITION; NP-HARD; RECIPIENT DESIGN; SIMULATION; TRACTABLE;

BAYESIAN NETWORKS;

EID: 85139472975     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. Abdelbar, A., & Hedetniemi, S. (1998, Jun). Approximating MAPs for belief networks is NP-hard and other theorems. Artificial Intelligence, 102(1), 21–38.
2. Baker, C., Saxe, R., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009, Dec). Action understanding as inverse planning. Cognition, 113(3), 329–349.
3. Blokpoel, M., Kwisthout, J., van der Weide, T. P., & van Rooij, I. (2010). How action understanding can be rational, Bayesian and tractable. In S. O. . R. Catrambone (Ed.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1643-1648). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
4. Bylander, T., Allemang, D., & Tanner, M. (1991, Jan). The computational complexity of abduction. Artificial Intelligence, 49(1–3), 25–60.
5. Charniak, E., & Goldman, R. (1991, Jan). Probabilistic abduction for plan recognition (Tech. Rep.). Department of Computer Science Brown University and Department of Computer Science Tulane University.
6. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. de Ruiter, J., Noordzij, M., Newman-Norlund, S., Newman-Norlund, R., Hagoort, P., Levinson, S., et al. (2010). Exploring the cognitive infrastructure of communication. Interaction Studies, 11, 51–77.
8. Downey, R. G., & Fellows, M. R. (1999). Parameterized Complexity. Springer. Hardcover.
9. Fortnow, L. (2009). The status of the P versus NP problem. Communications of the ACM, 52(9), 78–86.
10. Galantucci, B. (2005). An experimental study of the emergence of human communication systems. Cognitive Science, 29, 737–767.
11. Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. W. H. Freeman.
12. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press.
13. Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., & Horton, W. S. (1998). The egocentric basis of language use: Insights from a processing approach. Current Directions in Psych. Science, 7, 46–50.
14. Kwisthout, J. (2010). Most probable explanations in Bayesian networks: complexity and tractability (Tech. Rep.). Faculty of Science, Radboud University Nijmegen.
15. Levinson, S. (2006). On the human’interaction engine’. Roots of Human Society.
16. nd ed.). Rootledge.
17. Müller, M., van Rooij, I., & Wareham, T. (2009). Similarity as tractable transformation. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 50–55). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
18. Newman-Norlund, S. E., Noordzij, M. L., Newman-Norlund, R. D., Volman, I. A., de Ruiter, J. P., Hagoort, P., et al. (2009, Apr). Recipient design in tacit communication. Cognition, 111(1), 46–54.
19. Nordh, G., & Zanuttini, B. (2005). Propositional abduction is almost always hard. In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2005) (pp. 534–539). Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
20. Peirce, C. S. (1931–1966). The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce (Vol. 8; P. W. C. Hartshorne & A. W. Burks, Eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
21. Scott-Phillips, T. C., & Kirby, S. (2010). Language evolution in the laboratory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(9), 411–417.
22. Shafto, P., & Goodman, N. (2008, Jan). Teaching games: Statistical sampling assumptions for learning in pedagogical situations. Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
23. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell Publishing.
24. Thagard, P., & Verbeurgt, K. (1998, Mar). Coherence as constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 22(1), 1–24.
25. van Rooij, I. (2008). The tractable cognition thesis. Cognitive Science, 32, 939–984.
26. van Rooij, I., Evans, P., Müller, M., Gedge, J., & Wareham, T. (2008, Jan). Identifying sources of intractability in cognitive models: An illustration using analogical structure mapping. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
27. van Rooij, I., Stege, U., & Kadlec, H. (2005). Sources of complexity in subset choice. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49(2), 160–187.
28. van Rooij, I., & Wareham, T. (2008, Nov). Parameterized complexity in cognitive modeling: Foundations, applications and opportunities. The Computer Journal, 51(3), 385–404.
29. Verbrugge, R. (2009). Logic and social cognition: The facts matter, and so do computational models. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38(6), 649–680.
30. Wareham, H. T., Evans, P., & van Rooij, I. (2010). What does (and doesn’t) make analogical problem solving easy? Journal of Problem Solving, 3(2), 30–71.