Affinity-based Interpretation of Triangle Social Scenarios

Pratyusha Kalluri, Pablo Gervás

Abstract

Computational interpretation of social scenarios is a critical step towards more human-like artificial intelligence. We present a model that interprets social scenarios by deducing the affinities of the constituent relationships. First, our model deploys Bayesian inference with an action affinity lexicon to infer probabilistic affinity relations characterizing the scenario. Subsequently, our model is able to use the inferred affinity relations to choose the most probable statement from multiple plausible statements about the scenario. We evaluate our approach on 80 Triangle-COPA multiple-choice problems that test interpretation of social scenarios. Our approach correctly answers the majority (59) of the 80 questions (73.75%), including questions about behaviors, emotions, social conventions, and complex constructs. Our model maintains interpretive power while using knowledge captured in the lightweight action affinity lexicon. Our model is a promising approach to interpretation of social scenarios, and we identify potential applications to automated narrative analysis, AI narrative generation, and assistive technology.

References

  1. Brown, H., Oram-Cardy, J., and Johnson, A. 2013, A Meta-Analysis of the Reading Comprehension Skills of Individuals on the Autism Spectrum, Journal Of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 4, pp. 932- 955.
  2. Bonato, A., D'Angelo, D., Elenberg, E., Gleich, D., and Hou, Y. 2016, Mining and modeling character networks, arXiv, EBSCOhost.
  3. Cartwright, D. and Harary, F. 1956. Structural Balance: A Generalization of Heider's Theory, Psychology Review, 63, 5.
  4. Davis, E. and Morgenstern, L. 2005, A First-order Theory of Communication and Multi-agent Plans, Journal Of Logic and Computation, 15, 5, pp. 701-749.
  5. Gervás, P. 2009. Computational Approaches to Storytelling and Creativity, AI Magazine, 30, pp. 49- 62.
  6. Gigerenzer, G., Hertwig, R., van den Broek, E., Fasolo, B., and Katsikopoulos, K. 2005. “A 30% Chance of Rain Tomorrow”: How Does the Public Understand Probabilistic Weather Forecasts?, Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 25, 3, pp. 623-629.
  7. Gordon, A. S. 2016. Commonsense Interpretation of Triangle Behavior, In Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-16).
  8. Gordon, A. S. and Hobbs, J. R. 2011. A commonsense theory of mind-body interaction, In Proceedings of the 2011 AAAI Spring Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning.
  9. Heider, F. 1946. Attitudes and Cognitive Organization, The Journal of Psychology, 21, pp. 107-112.
  10. Heider, F. and Simmel, M. 1944. An experimental study of apparent behavior, The American Journal of Psychology, 57, 2, p. 243.
  11. Kahneman, D., Fredrickson, B., Schreiber, C., and Redelmeier, D. 1993, When More Pain Is Preferred To Less: Adding a Better End, Psychological Science, 4, 6, pp. 401-405.
  12. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. 1982, On the study of statistical intuitions, Cognition, 11, pp. 123-141.
  13. Kuhlmeier , V. A. , Wynn , K. , and Bloom , P. 2004. Reasoning about present dispositions based on past interactions, Paper presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies.
  14. Premack, D. and Premack, A. J. 1997. Infants attribute value +/ - to the goal-directed actions of self-propelled objects, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, pp. 848 - 856 .
  15. Maslan, N., Roemmele, M., and Gordon, A. 2015. One Hundred Challenge Problems for Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Psychology, Twelfth International Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning (Commonsense-2015).
  16. Mehrabian, A. 1996. Pleasure-arousal-dominance: a general framework for describing and measuring individual differences in temperament, Current Psychology, 14, 4, pp. 261-292.
  17. Moretti, F. 2011. Network Theory, Plot Analysis. New Left Review, 68, pp. 80-102.
  18. Reagan, A., Mitchell, L., Kiley, D., Danforth, C., and Dodds, P. 2016. The emotional arcs of stories are dominated by six basic shapes, EPJ Data Science, 5, 1, p. 1.
  19. Rutherford, M. and Kuhlmeier, V. 2013. Social Perception: Detection And Interpretation Of Animacy, Agency, And Intention, n.p.: Cambridge, Massachusetts : MIT Press, (2013).
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Kalluri P. and Gervás P. (2017). Affinity-based Interpretation of Triangle Social Scenarios . In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART, ISBN 978-989-758-220-2, pages 640-647. DOI: 10.5220/0006205506400647


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icaart17,
author={Pratyusha Kalluri and Pablo Gervás},
title={Affinity-based Interpretation of Triangle Social Scenarios},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,},
year={2017},
pages={640-647},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0006205506400647},
isbn={978-989-758-220-2},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,
TI - Affinity-based Interpretation of Triangle Social Scenarios
SN - 978-989-758-220-2
AU - Kalluri P.
AU - Gervás P.
PY - 2017
SP - 640
EP - 647
DO - 10.5220/0006205506400647