1 / 11

Semantic Communication

Semantic Communication. Madhu Sudan (based on joint work with Brendan Juba (MIT); and upcoming work with Oded Goldreich (Weizmann) & J. ). My research interests. Computation Communication Role of errors Probabilistically checkable proofs List-decoding … and now Semantic Communication.

chaz
Download Presentation

Semantic Communication

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Semantic Communication Madhu Sudan (based on joint work with Brendan Juba (MIT); and upcoming work with Oded Goldreich (Weizmann) & J. )

  2. My research interests • Computation • Communication • Role of errors • Probabilistically checkable proofs • List-decoding • … and now Semantic Communication

  3. Semantic Communication • Bits (words) have meaning • Can we preserve meaning when communicating? • Important in modern “society of computers” A B Freeze or

  4. What is meaning? • Send “0010000110” • Reciever: “Rec’d “0010000110”” • Did this preserve meaning? • No … • Meaning = Interpretation associated with bits • = how bits rec’d change state of your mind. • (same diff. as between algorithm, and its encoding in some programming language/universal TM) • But if no one can read the state of your mind, how do I know if you’ve misunderstood me?

  5. Semantic Communication • Definition of “Meaning” non-trivial • Want to preserve it only to the extent that it is relevant. • But relevance should not be defined to make everything irrelevant. • If communication achieves some goal with knowledge of language, it should still achieve it without knowledge of language.

  6. Our research – Part 1 • Articulate one class of “information-oriented goal” of communication. • Show how it captures “semantic miscommunication” • Theorem: “If helpful parties interact, they can achieve the goal (while overcoming linguistic hurdles) provided the goal is “verifiable”. • Crux of theorem: Definitions that make it true!

  7. Goal=? • Bob wants to solve hard computational problem • is program P = virus? • Is game of chess winnable? • Alien capable of solving hard problem; but doesn’t know B’s language. • Can A help B? For which problems?

  8. Philosophical interpretation of answers • If A can only help B solve problems he can solve by himself … communication is pointless. • If A can help B solve all problems, communication is powerful and misunderstandings can always be overcome. • If A can help B solve some new problems, then communication is ocassionally helpful; and one ought to be careful with it.

  9. Misunderstandings and Helpfulness. • Modelled by collection of {Aᵢ}s and {Bᵢ}s. • (for every language, there is a copy Aᵢ that speaks in language i, and a Bᵢ that speaks i). • Helpful = For every Aᵢ there exists Bj, such that Aᵢ helps Bj solve problem (plus technicalities). • Universality = B should be able solve problem with every (helpful) Aj.

  10. Theorems: • B can use {Aᵢ}’s help to solve every “verifiable” problem • [Verifiable problems include (PSPACE-complete) problems that B could not solve on its own] • B can only solve verifiable problems. • [Moral: Ǝ danger in updating OS and anti-virus software asynchronously.]

  11. Our research – Part II (ongoing) • Generalize to arbitrary goals of communication. • Tricky part: Capturing goal (= state of my mind?) while allowing my actions to vary (in effect changing my mental action and hence states).

More Related