Quantum-like dynamics applied to cognition: a consideration of available options

Quantum probability theory (QPT) has provided a novel, rich mathematical framework for cognitive modelling, especially for situations which appear paradoxical from classical perspectives. This work concerns the dynamical aspects of QPT, as relevant to cognitive modelling. We aspire to shed light on how the mind's driving potentials (encoded in Hamiltonian and Lindbladian operators) impact the evolution of a mental state. Some existing QPT cognitive models do employ dynamical aspects when considering how a mental state changes with time, but it is often the case that several simplifying assumptions are introduced. What kind of modelling flexibility does QPT dynamics offer without any simplifying assumptions and is it likely that such flexibility will be relevant in cognitive modelling? We consider a series of nested QPT dynamical models, constructed with a view to accommodate results from a simple, hypothetical experimental paradigm on decision-making. We consider Hamiltonians more complex than the ones which have traditionally been employed with a view to explore the putative explanatory value of this additional complexity. We then proceed to compare simple models with extensions regarding both the initial state (e.g. a mixed state with a specific orthogonal decomposition; a general mixed state) and the dynamics (by introducing Hamiltonians which destroy the separability of the initial structure and by considering an open-system extension). We illustrate the relations between these models mathematically and numerically. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Second quantum revolution: foundational questions’.

[1]  Ismael Martínez-Martínez,et al.  Quantum stochastic walks on networks for decision-making , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[2]  A. Khrennikov,et al.  Quantum Social Science , 2013 .

[3]  Masanori Ohya,et al.  On Application of Gorini-Kossakowski-Sudarshan-Lindblad Equation in Cognitive Psychology , 2011, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn..

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

[5]  G. Lindblad On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups , 1976 .

[6]  Harald Atmanspacher,et al.  A proposed test of temporal nonlocality in bistable perception , 2010 .

[7]  Pierfrancesco La Mura Correlated Equilibria of Classical Strategic Games with Quantum Signals , 2003, ArXiv.

[8]  Daniel A. Lidar Review of Decoherence‐Free Subspaces, Noiseless Subsystems, and Dynamical Decoupling , 2014 .

[9]  Non-classical expected utility theory with application to type indeterminacy , 2007 .

[10]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  A Hamiltonian Driven Quantum-Like Model for Overdistribution in Episodic Memory Recollection , 2017, Front. Phys..

[11]  Didier Sornette,et al.  Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement , 2011, ArXiv.

[12]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision , 2012 .

[13]  A. Tversky,et al.  Thinking through uncertainty: Nonconsequential reasoning and choice , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  Support theory: A nonextensional representation of subjective probability. , 1994 .

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

[16]  James M. Yearsley,et al.  Quantum cognition and decision theories: A tutorial , 2016 .

[17]  Yoshiharu Tanaka,et al.  Quantum-like model of brain's functioning: decision making from decoherence. , 2011, Journal of theoretical biology.

[18]  N. Chater,et al.  Précis of Bayesian Rationality: The Probabilistic Approach to Human Reasoning , 2009, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[19]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  The Liar-paradox in a Quantum Mechanical Perspective , 1999 .

[20]  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 .

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

[22]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  The Generalised Liar Paradox: A Quantum Model and Interpretation , 2004 .

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

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

[25]  Emmanuel Haven,et al.  Instability of political preferences and the role of mass media: a dynamical representation in a quantum framework , 2016, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[26]  Peter Bruza Is There Something Quantum-Like about the Human Mental Lexicon? , 2009, INEX.

[27]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[28]  Emmanuel M Pothos,et al.  Zeno's paradox in decision-making , 2016, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[29]  Emmanuel Haven,et al.  An Application of the Theory of Open Quantum Systems to Model the Dynamics of Party Governance in the US Political System , 2014 .

[30]  R. Weale Vision. A Computational Investigation Into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. David Marr , 1983 .

[31]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[32]  James M. Yearsley,et al.  Advanced tools and concepts for quantum cognition: A tutorial , 2017 .

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

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

[35]  Charles Kemp,et al.  How to Grow a Mind: Statistics, Structure, and Abstraction , 2011, Science.

[36]  J. Tenenbaum,et al.  Probabilistic models of cognition: exploring representations and inductive biases , 2010, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[37]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Applications of Quantum Statistics in Psychological Studies of Decision Processes , 1995 .

[38]  Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov,et al.  Quantum Models for Psychological Measurements: An Unsolved Problem , 2014, PloS one.

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

[40]  E. Sudarshan,et al.  Completely Positive Dynamical Semigroups of N Level Systems , 1976 .

[41]  Jonathan Evans The heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning: Extension and evaluation , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[42]  Emmanuel M Pothos,et al.  Challenging the classical notion of time in cognition: a quantum perspective , 2014, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[43]  J. Fodor The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .