- •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 |
158 S. Gogioso and C. M. Scandolo
When it comes to this work, however, this is not much of a problem: all we need to show is that an extension of our theory can exists in which the “tree-on-a- bridge” e ect above can be completed to the discarding map, and our results— both hyper-decoherence to quantum theory and higher-order interference—will automatically apply to any such extension.
Let (|ψx )x X be the orthonormal basis associated with the special commutative †-Frobenius algebra 
. The e ect needed to complete 
(DD(H),hypdec ) to the discarding map 
DD(H) is itself an e ect in CPM(fHilb), which can be written explicitly as follows:
H |
|
|
|
|
H |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
= |
H |
|
|
Ψx† |
(45) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
− |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ψ † |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
x,y X |
H |
|
|
|
||||
H |
|
|
|
|
H |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
y |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
s.t. x=y |
|
|
|
|
|||
Because it is an e ect in CPM(fHilb), which has R+ as its semiring of scalars, it is in particular non-negative on all states in DD(fHilb), showing that: (i) hyper-decoherence maps are sub-normalised; (ii) our theory does not satisfy the no-restriction condition; (iii) an extension to a theory with normalised hyperdecoherence is possible. This shows that our results on hyper-decoherence have physical significance. Furthermore, let |1 , ..., |d be an orthonormal basis of Cd, and let 
correspond to the Fourier basis for the finite abelian group Zd:
1 |
d |
2π |
|
|
|
|
ei |
jk |j |
|
(46) |
|||
√ |
|
d |
|
|||
d |
|
k=1,...,d |
||||
|
|
j=1 |
|
|
|
|
Choosing k := d, in particular, shows that the orthonormal basis above contains
the state 1 |ψ used in Sect. 4. Then the e ect defined in Eq. 45 also shows that
√d +
the computation of P[+|U ] in Sect. 4 can be done as part of a bonafide measurement in any such extended theory, and hence that our higher-order interference result has physical significance.
References
1.Barnum, H., Lee, C.M., Scandolo, C.M., Selby, J.H.: Ruling out higher-order interference from purity principles. Entropy 19(6), 253 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3390/ e19060253
2.Barnum, H., M¨uller, M.P., Ududec, C.: Higher-order interference and single-system postulates characterizing quantum theory. New J. Phys. 16(12), 123029 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/16/12/123029
3.Chiribella, G., D’Ariano, G.M., Perinotti, P.: Probabilistic theories with purification. Phys. Rev. A 81, 062348 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.81. 062348
4.Chiribella, G., Scandolo, C.M.: Entanglement as an axiomatic foundation for statistical mechanics. arXiv:1608.04459 [quant-ph] (2016). http://arxiv.org/abs/1608. 04459
suai.ru/our-contacts |
quantum machine learning |
Density Hypercubes, Higher Order Interference and Hyper-decoherence |
159 |
5.Chiribella, G., Scandolo, C.M.: Microcanonical thermodynamics in general physical theories. New J. Phys. 19(12), 123043 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ aa91c7
6.Coecke, B.: Terminality implies no-signalling... and much more than that. New Gener. Comput. 34(1–2), 69–85 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00354-016- 0201-6
7.Coecke, B., Lal, R.: Causal categories: relativistically interacting processes. Found. Phys. 43(4), 458–501 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-012-9646-8
8.Coecke, B., Pavlovic, D., Vicary, J.: A new description of orthogonal bases. Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 23(3), 555–567 (2013)
9.Coecke, B., Perdrix, S.: Environment and classical channels in categorical quantum mechanics. In: Dawar, A., Veith, H. (eds.) CSL 2010. LNCS, vol. 6247, pp. 230–244.
Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15205-4 20
ˇ
10. Daki´c, B., Paterek, T., Brukner, C.: Density cubes and higher-order interference theories. New J. Phys. 16(2), 023028 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ 16/2/023028
11. Gogioso, S., Scandolo, C.M.: Categorical probabilistic theories. In: Coecke, B., Kissinger, A. (eds.) Proceedings 14th International Conference on Quantum Physics and Logic, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 3–7 July 2017. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 266, pp. 367–385. Open Publishing Association (2018). https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.266.23
12. Gogioso, S.: Higher-order CPM constructions. Electron. Proc. Theor. Comput. Sci. 270, 145–162 (2019). https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.287.8
13. Jin, F., et al.: Experimental test of born’s rule by inspecting third-order quantum interference on a single spin in solids. Phys. Rev. A 95, 012107 (2017). https:// doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.012107
ˇ
14. Kauten, T., Keil, R., Kaufmann, T., Pressl, B., Brukner, C., Weihs, G.: Obtaining tight bounds on higher-order interferences with a 5-path interferometer. New J. Phys. 19(3), 033017 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aa5d98
15. Krumm, M., Barnum, H., Barrett, J., M¨uller, M.P.: Thermodynamics and the structure of quantum theory. New J. Phys. 19(4), 043025 (2017). https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1367-2630/aa68ef
16. Lee, C.M., Selby, J.H.: Deriving Grover’s lower bound from simple physical principles. New J. Phys. 18(9), 093047 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/18/ 9/093047
17. Lee, C.M., Selby, J.H.: Generalised phase kick-back: the structure of computational algorithms from physical principles. New J. Phys. 18(3), 033023 (2016). https:// doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/18/3/033023
18. Lee, C.M., Selby, J.H.: Higher-order interference in extensions of quantum theory. Found. Phys. 47(1), 89–112 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-016-0045-4
19. Lee, C.M., Selby, J.H., Barnum, H.: Oracles and query lower bounds in generalised probabilistic theories. arXiv:1704.05043 [quant-ph] (2017). https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1704.05043
20. Lee, C.M., Selby, J.H.: A no-go theorem for theories that decohere to quantum mechanics. Proc. Roy. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 474(2214), 20170732 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2017.0732
21. Niestegge, G.: Three-slit experiments and quantum nonlocality. Found. Phys. 43(6), 805–812 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-013-9719-3
22. Park, D.K., Moussa, O., Laflamme, R.: Three path interference using nuclear magnetic resonance: a test of the consistency of Born’s rule. New J. Phys. 14(11), 113025 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/11/113025
suai.ru/our-contacts |
quantum machine learning |
160 S. Gogioso and C. M. Scandolo
23.Sinha, A., Vijay, A.H., Sinha, U.: On the superposition principle in interference experiments. Sci. Rep. 5, 10304 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep10304
24.Sinha, U., Couteau, C., Jennewein, T., Laflamme, R., Weihs, G.: Ruling out multi-order interference in quantum mechanics. Science 329(5990), 418–421 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1190545
25.Sorkin, R.D.: Quantum mechanics as quantum measure theory. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 9(33), 3119–3127 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1142/S021773239400294X
26.Sorkin, R.D.: Quantum Measure Theory and its Interpretation. In: Quantum Classical Correspondence: The 4th Drexel Symposium on Quantum Nonintegrability, pp. 229–251. International Press, Boston (1997)
27.Ududec, C.: Perspectives on the formalism of quantum theory. Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo (2012)
28.Ududec, C., Barnum, H., Emerson, J.: Three slit experiments and the structure of quantum theory. Found. Phys. 41(3), 396–405 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10701-010-9429-z
29.Zwart, M., Coecke, B.: Double dilation = double mixing (extended abstract). In: Coecke, B., Kissinger, A. (eds.) Proceedings 14th International Conference on Quantum Physics and Logic, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 3–7 July 2017. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 266, pp. 133–146. Open
Publishing Association (2018). https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.266.9
˙
30. Zyczkowski, K.: Quartic quantum theory: an extension of the standard quantum mechanics. J. Phys. A 41(35), 355302 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/ 41/35/355302