Homonyms and context in signalling game with reinforcement learning

Dorota Lipowska; Adam Lipowski; António L. Ferreira

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0322743

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 6, 2024
6 Oct 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322743.r001
29 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Viacheslav Kovtun, Editor PONE-D-24-44481Homonyms and context in signaling game with reinforcement learningPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lipowska, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 13 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Viacheslav Kovtun, Dr.Sc., Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The paper examines how context in a multi-agent signaling game, enhanced by reinforcement learning, influences the stability and dynamics of homonyms in language formation. By comparing linear and superlinear weight-dependent probabilities, the authors show that contextual cues stabilize homonyms and suggest a superlinear model might better represent real language evolution. Here are my suggestions: 1. The paper claims that introducing contextuality within the signaling game stabilizes homonyms, which is a novel approach, but it could clarify this gap more explicitly. While it notes that previous studies examined signaling games without context or predominantly linear selection probabilities, the paper could benefit from a more direct statement of how these gaps have limited our understanding of language ambiguities. 2. While the paper suggests that the superlinear (α>1) regime aligns better with real-world language evolution, this argument would be strengthened by more empirical or theoretical backing from prior research. 3. The model assumes uniform initial conditions and parameters, limiting generalizability to naturally diverse language environments. 4. The choice of parameter values, while discussed, lacks sufficient justification on why they specifically represent real-world language conditions. 5. Analysis primarily addresses the emergence of stable homonyms but overlooks nuances of actual language ambiguities, such as polysemy and synonymy. 6. Limited exploration of practical implications of superlinear vs. linear regimes for language stability or efficiency in human communication. Reviewer #2: 1.The manuscript would benefit from improved formatting of formulas and figures to enhance readability and clarity. All equations should be consistently centered. Additionally, multiple similar figures (e.g., time evolution of success rates and homonymy rates for different values of p_c ) could be combined into a single figure with subplots, accompanied by comparative explanations. This approach would make the results more concise and allow readers to better identify trends and relationships. Providing detailed captions that highlight key observations would further improve the visual presentation. 2.While the introduction outlines the basic premise of signaling games and the role of contextuality, the research motivation and its novelty compared to prior works remain unclear. The manuscript should explicitly highlight how this study extends or differs from existing studies on language ambiguities and signaling games, particularly regarding the introduction of superlinear regimes (α>1) and their implications for language formation. 3. The manuscript introduces parameters such as α and p_c but does not provide sufficient justification for their specific values or range. For instance, the significance of α=1 and α>1in reflecting real-world language dynamics needs further explanation. Including a discussion on how these parameters map to observed linguistic phenomena would strengthen the model’s applicability and credibility. 4. The findings on symmetric and nonsymmetric homonyms are intriguing but lack adequate connection to real-world linguistic observations. For example, the distinction between balanced and polarized homonyms is mentioned but not deeply analyzed. The manuscript should provide concrete examples or references to natural language data to validate the claim that the superlinear regime better explains language formation processes. Additionally, discussing the limitations of the current model and potential extensions, such as incorporating more complex contextual features or agent behaviors, would significantly improve the discussion section. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322743.r002
Revision 1
13 Mar 2025 Author Response Dear Editors, We thank the Reviewers for their critical remarks and comments. We have revised our manuscript according to their suggestions. Reviewer #1: The paper examines how context in a multi-agent signaling game, enhanced by reinforcement learning, influences the stability and dynamics of homonyms in language formation. By comparing linear and superlinear weight-dependent probabilities, the authors show that contextual cues stabilize homonyms and suggest a superlinear model might better represent real language evolution. Here are my suggestions: 1. The paper claims that introducing contextuality within the signaling game stabilizes homonyms, which is a novel approach, but it could clarify this gap more explicitly. While it notes that previous studies examined signaling games without context or predominantly linear selection probabilities, the paper could benefit from a more direct statement of how these gaps have limited our understanding of language ambiguities. We have addressed this issue in the modified part of Introduction. In particular, we have mentioned that language ambiguities, as studied using a signaling game without contextuality [11], appear to be transient features only. We have also mentioned that our previous studies [23] demonstrated that with the linear reinforcement, the emerging language is less efficient. When describing the results of the present paper, we have indicated that only for superlinear reinforcement (i) the emerging language is typically more efficient (than for the linear reinforcement), and (ii) in the presence of contextuality, certain non-symmetric homonyms are stable. 2. the paper suggests that the superlinear (α>1) regime aligns better with real-world language evolution, this argument would be strengthened by more empirical or theoretical backing from prior research. To address this issue, we have modified the final part of the Nonlinear urn model subsection. 3. The model assumes uniform initial conditions and parameters, limiting generalizability to naturally diverse language environments. In a signaling game with the reinforcement learning, uniform initial conditions imply that there are no predefined strategies. Such strategies, e.g., a signaling system or ambiguous strategies, emerge spontaneously as a result of local communication acts between agents. Thus, our approach does not limit the linguistic diversity of the system. We have modified Introduction to address this issue. 4. The choice of parameter values, while discussed, lacks sufficient justification on why they specifically represent real-world language conditions. Most of the simulations were done for N=300 (number of agents), n_o=30 (number of objects) and n_w=50 (number of words). We have mentioned in the text that such a choice should not be unrealistic in the context of language formation. Furthermore, we expect that our results are to some extent generic and robust. At the beginning of the Results and Discussion section, we have added that, in our opinion, it is very difficult to provide reliable estimates of these parameters that would correspond to realistic language formation processes. 5. Analysis primarily addresses the emergence of stable homonyms but overlooks nuances of actual language ambiguities, such as polysemy and synonymy. In Introduction, we have mentioned that, in principle, other ambiguities such as synonyms or polysemes could also appear in the emerging language. For synonyms, however, contextuality does not seem to be important (at least in our approach), since they are correctly interpreted even without context. From the signaling game point of view, polysemes are words with multiple but related meanings, and their analysis within the signaling game is interesting, but probably more complex than that carried out in the present paper for homonyms. We have also mentioned this in Introduction. 6. Limited exploration of practical implications of superlinear vs. linear regimes for language stability or efficiency in human communication. In the Introduction, we have added a brief discussion of the linear and superlinear regimes as applied to some network formation models, but also in the context of language formation and the signaling game. Reviewer #2: 1.The manuscript would benefit from improved formatting of formulas and figures to enhance readability and clarity. All equations should be consistently centered. Additionally, multiple similar figures (e.g., time evolution of success rates and homonymy rates for different values of p_c ) could be combined into a single figure with subplots, accompanied by comparative explanations. This approach would make the results more concise and allow readers to better identify trends and relationships. Providing detailed captions that highlight key observations would further improve the visual presentation. All equations are centered. Figure 2 now combines Figures 2 and 3 from the earlier version of the manuscript, and similarly Figure 4 combines former Figures 5 and 6; these figures show both the success rate and the homonymy rate. Each figure is accompanied by text highlighting key observations. 2.While the introduction outlines the basic premise of signaling games and the role of contextuality, the research motivation and its novelty compared to prior works remain unclear. The manuscript should explicitly highlight how this study extends or differs from existing studies on language ambiguities and signaling games, particularly regarding the introduction of superlinear regimes (α>1) and their implications for language formation. We have substantially modified the final part of Introduction to better address motivation and novelty of the research. We have also added information on the relations with existing studies, particularly concerning the superlinear enforcing. 3. The manuscript introduces parameters such as α and p_c but does not provide sufficient justification for their specific values or range. For instance, the significance of α=1 and α>1in reflecting real-world language dynamics needs further explanation. Including a discussion on how these parameters map to observed linguistic phenomena would strengthen the model’s applicability and credibility. To discuss the role of the parameter α, we have modified the final part of the Nonlinear urn model subsection. It is rather difficult to estimate the value of p_c that would correspond to real human communication. In principle, p_c could also depend on the chosen object. In the Model section, we have added: “In our model, the probability $p_c$ is fixed and independent of the object chosen by the speaker. In more realistic applications, it would be natural to expect $p_c$ to depend on the object chosen.” 4. The findings on symmetric and nonsymmetric homonyms are intriguing but lack adequate connection to real-world linguistic observations. For example, the distinction between balanced and polarized homonyms is mentioned but not deeply analyzed. The manuscript should provide concrete examples or references to natural language data to validate the claim that the superlinear regime better explains language formation processes. Additionally, discussing the limitations of the current model and potential extensions, such as incorporating more complex contextual features or agent behaviors, would significantly improve the discussion section. We have reformulated the final part of the Nonlinear urn model subsection to better explain the role of the superlinear regime and the relations between our symmetric and non-symmetric homonyms and the balanced and polarised homonyms that have been linguistically studied. We have also mentioned that it would be desirable to extend our approach to polysemous expressions. References [17,46] describing some studies on balanced and polarised polysems have also been added. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322743.r003
26 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Viacheslav Kovtun, Editor Homonyms and context in signaling game with reinforcement learning PONE-D-24-44481R1 Dear Dr. Lipowska, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Viacheslav Kovtun, Dr.Sc., Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: The author has made changes according to the revision opinions and has responded well. I have no futher comments. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322743.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Viacheslav Kovtun, Editor PONE-D-24-44481R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lipowska, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Prof. Viacheslav Kovtun Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322743.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .