- •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 |
106 C. Moreira and A. Wichert
It is interesting to notice that indeed the parameters used accommodate the violations of the Sure Thing Principle alone in the quantum-like Bayesian Network could also be used to maximise the utility of a Cooperate action. This was verified in all works of the literature analysed except in Game 6 in the work of Li and Taplin (2002). The reason is that Game 6 is not even reporting a violation to the Sure Thing Principle and could be explained by the classical theory with a minor error percentage. This means that in this experiment, a def ect action was favoured over a cooperate one.
8 Conclusion
In this work, we proposed an extension of the quantum-like Bayesian Network initially proposed by Moreira and Wichert Moreira and Wichert (2014, 2016) into a quantum-like influence diagram. Influence diagrams are designed for knowledge representation. They are a directed acyclic compact graph structure that represents a full probabilistic description of a decision problem by using probabilistic inferences performed in Bayesian networks (Koller and Friedman 2009) together with a fully deterministic utility function. Currently, influence diagrams have a vast amount of applications. They can be used to determine the value of imperfect information on both carcinogenic activity and human exposure (Howard and Matheson 2005), the are used to detect imperfections in manufacturing and they can even be used for team decision analysis (Detwarasiti and Shachter 2005), valuing real options (Lander and Shenoy 2001), etc.
The preliminary results obtained in this study show that the quantum-like Bayesian network can be extended to deal with decision-making scenarios by incorporating the notion of maximum expected utility in influence diagrams. The general idea is to take advantage of the quantum interference terms produced in the quantum-like Bayesian network to influence the probabilities used to compute the expected utility. This way, we are not proposing a new type of expected utility hypothesis. On the contrary, we are keeping it under its classical definition. We are only incorporating it as an extension of a quantum-like probabilistic graphical model where the utility node depends only on the probabilistic inferences of the quantum-like Bayesian network.
This notion of influence diagrams opens several new research paths. One can incorporate di erent utility nodes being influenced by di erent random variables of the quantum-like Bayesian Network. This way one can even explore di erent interference terms a ecting di erent utility nodes, etc. We plan to carry on with this study and further develop these ideas in future research.
References
Bruza, P., Wang, Z., Busemeyer, J.: Quantum cognition: a new theoretical approach to psychology. Trends Cogn. Sci 19, 383–393 (2015)
Busemeyer, J., Bruza, P.: Quantum Model of Cognition and Decision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012)
suai.ru/our-contacts |
quantum machine learning |
Introducing Quantum-Like Influence Diagrams for Violations |
107 |
Busemeyer, J., Matthew, M., Wang, Z.: A quantum information processing explanation of disjunction e ects. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual COnference of the Cognitive Science Society (2006a)
Busemeyer, J., Wang, Z., Lambert-Mogiliansky, A.: Empirical comparison of Markov and quantum models of decision making. J. Math. Psychol. 53, 423–433 (2009)
Busemeyer, J., Wang, Z., Townsend, J.: Quantum dynamics of human decision making. J. Math. Psychol. 50, 220–241 (2006b)
Detwarasiti, A., Shachter, R.D.: Influence diagrams for team decision analysis. Decis. Anal. 2, 207–228 (2005)
Deutsch, D.: Quantum theory of probability and decisions. Proc. Roy. Soc. A 455, 3129–3137 (1988)
Howard, R., Matheson, J.: Influence diagrams. In: Readings on the Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis. Strategic Decisions Group (1984)
Howard, R., Matheson, J.: Influence diagrams. Decis. Anal. 2, 127–143 (2005) Hristova, E., Grinberg, M.: Disjunction e ect in prisonner’s dilemma: evidences from an
eye-tracking study. In: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (2008)
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., Tversky, A.: Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982)
Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory - an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47, 263–292 (1979)
Koller, D., Friedman, N.: Probabilistic Graphical Models: Principles and Techniques. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2009)
Kuhberger, A., Komunska, D., Josef, P.: The disjunction e ect: does it exist for twostep gambles? Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 85, 250–264 (2001)
Lambdin, C., Burdsal, C.: The disjunction e ect reexamined: relevant methodological issues and the fallacy of unspecified percentage comparisons. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 103, 268–276 (2007)
Lander, D., Shenoy, P.: Modeling and Valuing Real Options-Using Influence Diagrams. Technical report, School of Business, Babson College (2001)
Li, S., Taplin, J.: Examining whether there is a disjunction e ect in prisoner’s dilemma game. Chin. J. Psychol. 44, 25–46 (2002)
Moreira, C., Wichert, A.: Interference e ects in quantum belief networks. Appl. Soft Comput. 25, 64–85 (2014)
Moreira, C., Wichert, A.: Quantum-like Bayesian networks for modeling decision making. Front. Psychol. 7, 11 (2016)
Moreira, C., Wichert, A.: Exploring the relations between quantum-like Bayesian Networks and decision-making tasks with regard to face stimuli. J. Math. Psychol. 78, 86–95 (2017)
Mura, P.L.: Projective expected utility. J. Math. Psychol. 53, 408–414 (2009) Pothos, E., Busemeyer, J.: A quantum probability explanation for violations of rational
decision theory. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 276, 2171–2178 (2009) Savage, L.: The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, Hoboken (1954)
Shafir, E., Tversky, A.: Thinking through uncertainty: nonconsequential reasoning and choice. Cogn. Psychol. 24, 449–474 (1992)
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124–1131 (1974)
Tversky, A., Shafir, E.: The disjunction e ect in choice under uncertainty. J. Psychol. Sci. 3, 305–309 (1992)
von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1953)
suai.ru/our-contacts |
quantum machine learning |
108 C. Moreira and A. Wichert
Yukalov, V., Sornette, D.: Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement. Theor. Decis. 70, 283–328 (2011)
Yukalov, V., Sornette, D.: Preference reversal in quantum decision theory. Front. Pschol.: Cogn. 6, 1538 (2015)
Zurek, W.: Entanglement symmetry, amplitudes, and probabilities: inverting Born’s rule. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 1–5 (2011)