Добавил:
spbguap8
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:искусственный интеллект.pdf
X
- •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 |
Balanced Quantum-Like Model for Decision Making |
85 |
Probability Waves Are Smaller Equal One. We assume without loss of
generality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
p(y) ≤ p(¬y) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24) |
||||||||||
it follows that |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
p(y) ≤ 0.5. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25) |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
By the inequality of arithmetic and geometric means |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
p(y, x) + p(y, ¬x) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26) |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
p(y, x) |
· |
p(y, |
¬ |
x) |
≤ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
p(y) = p(y, x) + p(y, |
|
|
|
x) |
|
|
|
(27) |
|||||||||||||||||||||
p(y, x) |
· |
p(y, |
¬ |
x) |
≤ |
¬ |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
· |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
p(y, θ) = p(y) + 2 |
· |
|
|
p(y x) |
· |
p(x) |
· |
p(y |
|¬ |
x) |
· |
p( |
¬ |
x) |
· |
cos(θ) |
≤ |
2 |
· |
p(y) |
≤ |
1. |
(28) |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
2.3 Probability Waves |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Using the values of Tables 1 and 2, we can determine the probability waves |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
p(¬y, θ¬) = p(¬y) + 2 · |
|
|
|
|
|
|
· cos(θ¬). |
|
(29) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
p(¬y|x) · p(x) · p(¬y|¬x) · p(¬x) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
and |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
p(y, θ) = p(y) + 2 |
· |
|
p(y x) |
· |
p(x) |
· |
p(y x) |
· |
p( |
x) |
· |
cos(θ). |
|
|
(30) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
as indicated in Fig. 3. For |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|¬ |
|
¬ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
p(y) ≤ p(¬y) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31) |
|||||||||||||||||
the maximal interference is |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
± I ntermax = ± |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(32) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
p(y, x) · p(y, ¬x) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
and for |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
p(¬y) ≤ p(y) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(33) |
||||||||||
the maximal interference is |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
± I ntermax = ± |
|
. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(34) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
p(¬y, x) · p(¬y, ¬x) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We can define the intervals that describe the probability waves as |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Iy = [p(y) − I ntermax, p(y) + I ntermax] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(35) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
and |
I¬y = [p(¬y) − I ntermax, p(¬y) + I ntermax] |
|
|
|
|
|
(36) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
with |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
p(¬y, θ¬) I¬y , p(y, θ) Iy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||