Reinforcing trust in autonomous systems: A quantum cognitive approach

We investigated if an autonomous system can be provided with reasoning that maintains trust between human and system even when human and autonomous system reach discrepant conclusions. Tversky and Kahneman’s research [27] and the vast literature following it distinguishes two modes of human decision making: System 1, which is fast, emotional, and automatic, and System 2 which is slower, more deliberative, and more rational. Autonomous systems are thus far endowed with System 2. So when interacting with such a system, humans may follow System 1 unawares that their autonomous partner follows System 2. This can easily confuse the user when a discrepant decision is reached, eroding their trust in the autonomous system. Hence we investigated if trust in the message could interfere with trust its source, namely the autonomous system. For this we presented participants with images that might or might not be genuine, and found that they often distrusted the image (e.g., as photoshopped) when they distrusted its content. We present a quantum cognitive model that explains this interference. We speculate that enriching an autonomous system with this model will allow it to predict when its decisions may confuse the user, take pro-active steps to prevent this, and with it reinforce and maintain trust in the system.

[1]  Samson Abramsky,et al.  Contextual Semantics: From Quantum Mechanics to Logic, Databases, Constraints, and Complexity , 2014, Bull. EATCS.

[2]  H. Simon,et al.  Models Of Man : Social And Rational , 1957 .

[3]  Jennifer S Trueblood,et al.  A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. , 2011, Psychological review.

[4]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Toward an Ecological Theory of Concepts , 2008, 0803.2567.

[5]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  Quantum cognition: a new theoretical approach to psychology , 2015, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[6]  Eduard Hoenkamp,et al.  Why Information Retrieval Needs Cognitive Science: A call to arms , 2005 .

[7]  Peter Bruza,et al.  The cognitive decision space of trust: An exploratory study of image trustworthiness and the propensity to deceive , 2016 .

[8]  Robert F. Bordley Quantum Mechanical and Human Violations of Compound Probability Principles: Toward a Generalized Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle , 1998, Oper. Res..

[9]  Peter Bruza,et al.  How everyday language can and will boost effective information retrieval , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[10]  Emmanuel M. Pothos,et al.  A Quantum Probability Perspective on Borderline Vagueness , 2013, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[11]  A. Tversky,et al.  Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment , 1983 .

[12]  L. J. Savage,et al.  The Foundations of Statistics , 1955 .

[13]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  A quantum probability explanation for violations of ‘rational’ decision theory , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[14]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Ubiquitous Quantum Structure , 2010 .

[15]  Joseph P. Zbilut,et al.  Some remarks on an experiment suggesting quantum-like behavior of cognitive entities and formulation of an abstract quantum mechanical formalism to describe cognitive entity and its dynamics , 2007 .

[16]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[17]  Samson Abramsky,et al.  Semantic Unification A sheaf theoretic approach to natural language , 2014, Categories and Types in Logic, Language, and Physics.

[18]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Structure in Cognition , 2008, 0805.3850.

[19]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Contextualizing concepts using a mathematical generalization of the quantum formalism , 2002, J. Exp. Theor. Artif. Intell..

[20]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  Contextuality is about identity of random variables , 2014, 1405.2116.

[21]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Ubiquitous Quantum Structure: From Psychology to Finance , 2010 .

[22]  Harald Atmanspacher,et al.  The Potential of Using Quantum Theory to Build Models of Cognition , 2013, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[23]  B. Love,et al.  The myth of computational level theory and the vacuity of rational analysis , 2011, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[24]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Concepts and Their Dynamics: A Quantum-Theoretic Modeling of Human Thought , 2012, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[25]  Rodrigo Moro,et al.  On the nature of the conjunction fallacy , 2009, Synthese.

[26]  Jerome R Busemeyer,et al.  Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[27]  Ru Zhang,et al.  Is there contextuality in behavioural and social systems? , 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[28]  Joseph P. Zbilut,et al.  ON THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE THINK IN A QUANTUM MECHANICAL MANNER: AN EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF EXISTING QUANTUM INTERFERENCE EFFECTS IN COGNITIVE ANOMALY OF CONJUNCTION FALLACY , 2010 .

[29]  Laurianne Sitbon,et al.  A probabilistic framework for analysing the compositionality of conceptual combinations , 2013, ArXiv.

[30]  Jennifer Trueblood,et al.  A Quantum Probability Account of Order Effects in Inference , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[31]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  Special issue on “Probabilistic models of cognition , 2022 .