Goal-Oriented Semantic Communication for Logical Decision Making

Alternatively, it is possible to train a joint encoder h_\theta(\hat{e} \mid V) that maps directly from perceptual observations to semantic encodings (i.e., logic clauses).

To seperate them from statistical probabilities, notation c(\cdot) is used to denote inductive probabilities.

These labels are conventional: any FOL sentences or sets of sentences may occupy these roles, with degree of confirmation measuring how strongly the evidence supports the hypothesis. In logical probability, all available evidence is represented by a single sentence e, formed by conjoining individual observations. Carnap [carnap_logical_1962] explicitly separates methodological considerations—such as measurement procedures and noisy observations—from logical probability. Evidence is therefore not a statistical random variable, but an FOL observation report. Consequently, in defining types of information below, we do not take an expectation or average over the evidence. Hypotheses, initially uncertain, correspond to the possible FOL descriptions of an unknown. Once the true hypothesis is identified, it becomes part of the evidence.

A secondary compression layer may be applied to \hat{e} (e.g., via an autoencoder or joint source–channel coding). The semantic rate–distortion characterisation extends without conceptual changes.

If the objective of the receiver is to determine the state of the world as accurately as possible, the mutual information term in Theorem 2 is replaced with \mathrm{\gamma_s}(\mathcal{C}\mid\hat{e}) where \mathcal{C} is the set of constituents.

Although each goal state \varphi_m admits a constituent decomposition via Theorem 1, i.e., \varphi_m \equiv \bigvee_{C^{w,k} \models \varphi_m} C^{w,k}, in practice the goal states are grounded with respect to a specific ego vehicle. This is because we are typically not interested in the information that evidence conveys, on average, about the truth of a hypothesis for every vehicle—as the universal quantification in (?) would suggest—but rather in evaluating the truth of each hypothesis with respect to a particular ego vehicle of interest.

Specifying p(Q_i \mid \mathrm{Ct}_j) requires a sampling semantics (e.g., sampling a random pair, or an ego individual and then a partner). An attributive constituent \mathrm{Ct}_j(x) specifies which Q-sentences are existentially realised for an individual, but not a probability distribution over them. Without an explicit sampling story, the transition \mathrm{Ct}_j \to Q_i is logically meaningful but probabilistically incomplete.

The quantities q_{hk} function as local support sizes. Q-relations that are logically impossible under a given (C^w, D_\nu) are structural zeros—assigned probability exactly zero by the model, not merely unobserved. This makes Hilpinen’s framework a constrained multinomial model where logic determines which categories are allowed and statistics determines how probable the allowed categories are.