- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Modeling Meaning Associated with Documental Entities: Introducing the Brussels Quantum Approach
- •1 Introduction
- •2 The Double-Slit Experiment
- •3 Interrogative Processes
- •4 Modeling the QWeb
- •5 Adding Context
- •6 Conclusion
- •Appendix 1: Interference Plus Context Effects
- •Appendix 2: Meaning Bond
- •References
- •1 Introduction
- •2 Bell Test in the Problem of Cognitive Semantic Information Retrieval
- •2.1 Bell Inequality and Its Interpretation
- •2.2 Bell Test in Semantic Retrieving
- •3 Results
- •References
- •1 Introduction
- •2 Basics of Quantum Probability Theory
- •3 Steps to Build an HSM Model
- •3.1 How to Determine the Compatibility Relations
- •3.2 How to Determine the Dimension
- •3.5 Compute the Choice Probabilities
- •3.6 Estimate Model Parameters, Compare and Test Models
- •4 Computer Programs
- •5 Concluding Comments
- •References
- •Basics of Quantum Theory for Quantum-Like Modeling Information Retrieval
- •1 Introduction
- •3 Quantum Mathematics
- •3.1 Hermitian Operators in Hilbert Space
- •3.2 Pure and Mixed States: Normalized Vectors and Density Operators
- •4 Quantum Mechanics: Postulates
- •5 Compatible and Incompatible Observables
- •5.1 Post-Measurement State From the Projection Postulate
- •6 Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
- •6.1 Ensemble and Individual Interpretations
- •6.2 Information Interpretations
- •7 Quantum Conditional (Transition) Probability
- •9 Formula of Total Probability with the Interference Term
- •9.1 Växjö (Realist Ensemble Contextual) Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
- •10 Quantum Logic
- •11 Space of Square Integrable Functions as a State Space
- •12 Operation of Tensor Product
- •14 Qubit
- •15 Entanglement
- •References
- •1 Introduction
- •2 Background
- •2.1 Distributional Hypothesis
- •2.2 A Brief History of Word Embedding
- •3 Applications of Word Embedding
- •3.1 Word-Level Applications
- •3.2 Sentence-Level Application
- •3.3 Sentence-Pair Level Application
- •3.4 Seq2seq Application
- •3.5 Evaluation
- •4 Reconsidering Word Embedding
- •4.1 Limitations
- •4.2 Trends
- •4.4 Towards Dynamic Word Embedding
- •5 Conclusion
- •References
- •1 Introduction
- •2 Motivating Example: Car Dealership
- •3 Modelling Elementary Data Types
- •3.1 Orthogonal Data Types
- •3.2 Non-orthogonal Data Types
- •4 Data Type Construction
- •5 Quantum-Based Data Type Constructors
- •5.1 Tuple Data Type Constructor
- •5.2 Set Data Type Constructor
- •6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Incorporating Weights into a Quantum-Logic-Based Query Language
- •1 Introduction
- •2 A Motivating Example
- •5 Logic-Based Weighting
- •6 Related Work
- •7 Conclusion
- •References
- •Searching for Information with Meet and Join Operators
- •1 Introduction
- •2 Background
- •2.1 Vector Spaces
- •2.2 Sets Versus Vector Spaces
- •2.3 The Boolean Model for IR
- •2.5 The Probabilistic Models
- •3 Meet and Join
- •4 Structures of a Query-by-Theme Language
- •4.1 Features and Terms
- •4.2 Themes
- •4.3 Document Ranking
- •4.4 Meet and Join Operators
- •5 Implementation of a Query-by-Theme Language
- •6 Related Work
- •7 Discussion and Future Work
- •References
- •Index
- •Preface
- •Organization
- •Contents
- •Fundamentals
- •Why Should We Use Quantum Theory?
- •1 Introduction
- •2 On the Human Science/Natural Science Issue
- •3 The Human Roots of Quantum Science
- •4 Qualitative Parallels Between Quantum Theory and the Human Sciences
- •5 Early Quantitative Applications of Quantum Theory to the Human Sciences
- •6 Epilogue
- •References
- •Quantum Cognition
- •1 Introduction
- •2 The Quantum Persuasion Approach
- •3 Experimental Design
- •3.1 Testing for Perspective Incompatibility
- •3.2 Quantum Persuasion
- •3.3 Predictions
- •4 Results
- •4.1 Descriptive Statistics
- •4.2 Data Analysis
- •4.3 Interpretation
- •5 Discussion and Concluding Remarks
- •References
- •1 Introduction
- •2 A Probabilistic Fusion Model of Trust
- •3 Contextuality
- •4 Experiment
- •4.1 Subjects
- •4.2 Design and Materials
- •4.3 Procedure
- •4.4 Results
- •4.5 Discussion
- •5 Summary and Conclusions
- •References
- •Probabilistic Programs for Investigating Contextuality in Human Information Processing
- •1 Introduction
- •2 A Framework for Determining Contextuality in Human Information Processing
- •3 Using Probabilistic Programs to Simulate Bell Scenario Experiments
- •References
- •1 Familiarity and Recollection, Verbatim and Gist
- •2 True Memory, False Memory, over Distributed Memory
- •3 The Hamiltonian Based QEM Model
- •4 Data and Prediction
- •5 Discussion
- •References
- •Decision-Making
- •1 Introduction
- •1.2 Two Stage Gambling Game
- •2 Quantum Probabilities and Waves
- •2.1 Intensity Waves
- •2.2 The Law of Balance and Probability Waves
- •2.3 Probability Waves
- •3 Law of Maximal Uncertainty
- •3.1 Principle of Entropy
- •3.2 Mirror Principle
- •4 Conclusion
- •References
- •1 Introduction
- •4 Quantum-Like Bayesian Networks
- •7.1 Results and Discussion
- •8 Conclusion
- •References
- •Cybernetics and AI
- •1 Introduction
- •2 Modeling of the Vehicle
- •2.1 Introduction to Braitenberg Vehicles
- •2.2 Quantum Approach for BV Decision Making
- •3 Topics in Eigenlogic
- •3.1 The Eigenlogic Operators
- •3.2 Incorporation of Fuzzy Logic
- •4 BV Quantum Robot Simulation Results
- •4.1 Simulation Environment
- •5 Quantum Wheel of Emotions
- •6 Discussion and Conclusion
- •7 Credits and Acknowledgements
- •References
- •1 Introduction
- •2.1 What Is Intelligence?
- •2.2 Human Intelligence and Quantum Cognition
- •2.3 In Search of the General Principles of Intelligence
- •3 Towards a Moral Test
- •4 Compositional Quantum Cognition
- •4.1 Categorical Compositional Model of Meaning
- •4.2 Proof of Concept: Compositional Quantum Cognition
- •5 Implementation of a Moral Test
- •5.2 Step II: A Toy Example, Moral Dilemmas and Context Effects
- •5.4 Step IV. Application for AI
- •6 Discussion and Conclusion
- •Appendix A: Example of a Moral Dilemma
- •References
- •Probability and Beyond
- •1 Introduction
- •2 The Theory of Density Hypercubes
- •2.1 Construction of the Theory
- •2.2 Component Symmetries
- •2.3 Normalisation and Causality
- •3 Decoherence and Hyper-decoherence
- •3.1 Decoherence to Classical Theory
- •4 Higher Order Interference
- •5 Conclusions
- •A Proofs
- •References
- •Information Retrieval
- •1 Introduction
- •2 Related Work
- •3 Quantum Entanglement and Bell Inequality
- •5 Experiment Settings
- •5.1 Dataset
- •5.3 Experimental Procedure
- •6 Results and Discussion
- •7 Conclusion
- •A Appendix
- •References
- •Investigating Bell Inequalities for Multidimensional Relevance Judgments in Information Retrieval
- •1 Introduction
- •2 Quantifying Relevance Dimensions
- •3 Deriving a Bell Inequality for Documents
- •3.1 CHSH Inequality
- •3.2 CHSH Inequality for Documents Using the Trace Method
- •4 Experiment and Results
- •5 Conclusion and Future Work
- •A Appendix
- •References
- •Short Paper
- •An Update on Updating
- •References
- •Author Index
- •The Sure Thing principle, the Disjunction Effect and the Law of Total Probability
- •Material and methods
- •Experimental results.
- •Experiment 1
- •Experiment 2
- •More versus less risk averse participants
- •Theoretical analysis
- •Shared features of the theoretical models
- •The Markov model
- •The quantum-like model
- •Logistic model
- •Theoretical model performance
- •Model comparison for risk attitude partitioning.
- •Discussion
- •Authors contributions
- •Ethical clearance
- •Funding
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •Markov versus quantum dynamic models of belief change during evidence monitoring
- •Results
- •Model comparisons.
- •Discussion
- •Methods
- •Participants.
- •Task.
- •Procedure.
- •Mathematical Models.
- •Acknowledgements
- •New Developments for Value-based Decisions
- •Context Effects in Preferential Choice
- •Comparison of Model Mechanisms
- •Qualitative Empirical Comparisons
- •Quantitative Empirical Comparisons
- •Neural Mechanisms of Value Accumulation
- •Neuroimaging Studies of Context Effects and Attribute-Wise Decision Processes
- •Concluding Remarks
- •Acknowledgments
- •References
- •Comparison of Markov versus quantum dynamical models of human decision making
- •CONFLICT OF INTEREST
- •Endnotes
- •FURTHER READING
- •REFERENCES
suai.ru/our-contacts |
quantum machine learning |
Introduction to Hilbert Space Multi-Dimensional Modeling |
43 |
This chapter is organized as follows: First, we summarize the basic principles of quantum probability theory, then we summarize the steps required to build an HSM model, and Þnally we refer to programs available on the web for applying an HSM model to real data.
2 Basics of Quantum Probability Theory
The idea of applying quantum probability to the Þeld of judgment began from several directions [2, 4, 5, 14]. The Þrst to apply these ideas to the Þeld of information retrieval was by van Rijsbergen [18]. For more recent developments concerning the application of quantum theory to information retrieval, see [16]. van Rijsbergen argues that quantum theory provides a sufÞciently general yet rigorous formulation for integration of three different approaches to information retrievalÑ logical, vector space, and probabilistic. Another important reason for considering quantum theory is that human judgments (e.g., judging presence of symptoms by doctors) have been found to violate rules of Kolmogorov probability, and quantum probability provides a formulation for explaining these puzzling Þndings (see, e.g., [7]).
HSM models are based on quantum probability theory and so we need to brießy review some of the basic principles used from this theory.1
In quantum theory, a variable (e.g., variable A) is called an observable, which corresponds to the Kolmogorov concept of a random variable. The pair of a measurement of a variable and an outcome generated by measuring a variable is an event (e.g., measurement of variable A produces the outcome 3, so that we observe
A = 3).
Kolmogorov theory represents events as subsets of a sample space, . Quantum theory represents events as subspaces of a Hilbert space H .2 Each subspace, such as A, corresponds to an orthogonal projector, denoted PA for subspace A. An orthogonal projector is used to project vectors into the subspace it represents.
In Kolmogorov theory, the conjunction ÒA and BÓ of two events, A and B, is represented by the intersection of the two subsets representing the events (e.g., (A = 3) ∩ (B = 1)). In quantum theory, a sequence of events, such as A and then B, denoted AB, is represented by the sequence of projectors PB PA. If the projectors commute, PAPB = PB PA, then the product of the two projectors is a projector corresponding to the subspace A ∩ B, that is, PB PA = P (A ∩ B); and the events A and B are said to be compatible. However, if the two projectors do not commute, PB PA = PAPB , then neither their product is a projector, and the events
1See [7, 15, 16, 18] for tutorials for data and information scientists.
2Technically, a Hilbert space is a complex valued inner product vector space that is complete. Our vectors spaces are Þnite, and so they are always complete.
suai.ru/our-contacts |
quantum machine learning |
44 |
J. Busemeyer and Z. J. Wang |
are incompatible. The concept of incompatibility is a new contribution of quantum theory, which is not present in Kolmogorov theory.
Kolmogorov theory deÞnes a state as a probability measure p that maps events to probabilities. Quantum theory uses a unit length state vector, here denoted ψ, to assign probabilities to events.3 Probabilities are then computed from the quantum algorithm
p(A) = PAψ 2 . |
(1) |
Both Kolmogorov and quantum probabilities satisfy the properties for an additive measure. In the Kolmogorov case, p(A) ≥ 0, p( ) = 1, and if (A ∩ B) = 0, then p(A B) = p(A) + p(B).4 In the quantum case, p(A) ≥ 0, p(H ) = 1, and if PAPB = 0, then p(A B) = p(A) + p(B).5 In fact, Eq. (1) is the unique way to assign probabilities to subspaces that form an additive measure for dimensions greater than 2 [12].
Kolmogorov theory deÞnes a conditional probability function as follows:
p(B|A) = p(A ∩ B) , p(A)
so that the joint probability equals p(A ∩ B) = p(A)p(B|A) = p(B)p(A|B) = p(B∩A), and order does not matter. In quantum theory, the corresponding deÞnition of a conditional probability is
p(B|A) = PB PAψ 2 , p(A)
and so the probability of the sequence AB equals p(AB) = p(A) · p(B|A) =PB PAψ 2. In the quantum case, this deÞnition of conditional probability incorporates the property of incompatibility: if the projectors do not commute, so that PAPB = PB PA, then p(AB) = p(BA), and order of measurement matters. Extensions to sequences with more than two events follow the same principles for both classical and quantum theories. For example, the quantum probability of the sequence (AB)C equals PC (PB PA) ψ 2.
3A more general approach uses what is called a density operator rather than a pure state vector, but to keep ideas simple, we use the latter.
4 is the union of subsets A, B.
5 is the span of subspaces A, B.