Table Of ContentLecture Notes in Computer Science 7620
CommencedPublicationin1973
FoundingandFormerSeriesEditors:
GerhardGoos,JurisHartmanis,andJanvanLeeuwen
EditorialBoard
DavidHutchison
LancasterUniversity,UK
TakeoKanade
CarnegieMellonUniversity,Pittsburgh,PA,USA
JosefKittler
UniversityofSurrey,Guildford,UK
JonM.Kleinberg
CornellUniversity,Ithaca,NY,USA
AlfredKobsa
UniversityofCalifornia,Irvine,CA,USA
FriedemannMattern
ETHZurich,Switzerland
JohnC.Mitchell
StanfordUniversity,CA,USA
MoniNaor
WeizmannInstituteofScience,Rehovot,Israel
OscarNierstrasz
UniversityofBern,Switzerland
C.PanduRangan
IndianInstituteofTechnology,Madras,India
BernhardSteffen
TUDortmundUniversity,Germany
MadhuSudan
MicrosoftResearch,Cambridge,MA,USA
DemetriTerzopoulos
UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles,CA,USA
DougTygar
UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,CA,USA
GerhardWeikum
MaxPlanckInstituteforInformatics,Saarbruecken,Germany
Jerome R. Busemeyer François Dubois
Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky
Massimo Melucci (Eds.)
Quantum Interaction
6th International Symposium, QI 2012
Paris, France, June 27-29, 2012
Revised Selected Papers
1 3
VolumeEditors
JeromeR.Busemeyer
IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,IN47405,USA
E-mail:[email protected]
FrançoisDubois
ConservatoireNationaldesArtsetMétiers,75003Paris,France
E-mail:[email protected]
ArianeLambert-Mogiliansky
ParisSchoolofEconomics,75014Paris,France
E-mail:[email protected]
MassimoMelucci
UniversityofPadua,35131Padua,Italy
E-mail:[email protected]
ISSN0302-9743 e-ISSN1611-3349
ISBN978-3-642-35658-2 e-ISBN978-3-642-35659-9
DOI10.1007/978-3-642-35659-9
SpringerHeidelbergDordrechtLondonNewYork
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2012953929
CRSubjectClassification(1998):F.1.1-3,F.2.1-2,I.6.3-5,I.2.4,I.2.8,F.4.1,J.2
LNCSSublibrary:SL1–TheoreticalComputerScienceandGeneralIssues
©Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg2012
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.Allrightsarereserved,whetherthewholeorpartofthematerialis
concerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,re-useofillustrations,recitation,broadcasting,
reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherway,andstorageindatabanks.Duplicationofthispublication
orpartsthereofispermittedonlyundertheprovisionsoftheGermanCopyrightLawofSeptember9,1965,
initscurrentversion,andpermissionforusemustalwaysbeobtainedfromSpringer.Violationsareliable
toprosecutionundertheGermanCopyrightLaw.
Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,etc.inthispublicationdoesnotimply,
evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevantprotectivelaws
andregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
Typesetting:Camera-readybyauthor,dataconversionbyScientificPublishingServices,Chennai,India
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
Preface
Quantum interaction (QI) is an emerging field which applies quantum theory
(QT) to domains such as economics, organizations and social interaction, psy-
chology,artificialintelligence,human language,cognition,informationretrieval,
biology, and political science. The application areas addressed typically oper-
ate at a macroscopic scale and could not be considered quantum in a quantum
mechanical sense, they may share many key properties with quantum systems
including: non-commutativity of measurement, indeterminacy, non-separability,
contextuality, and harmonic oscillations.
After highly successful previous meetings (QI 2007 at Stanford, QI 2008 at
Oxford, QI 2009 in Saarbruecken, QI 2010 in Washington DC, and QI 2011 in
Aberdeen),the6thInternationalSymposiumonQuantumInteractiontookplace
during June 27–29, 2012, in Paris, France.
QI 2012received32 submissions.All contributions were reviewedby at least
two reviewers. In total, 23 papers were accepted for presentation at the confer-
ence.Twokeynotespeakerswerefeatured.MichelBitbol(DepartmentofEpiste-
mology,E´colePolytechniqueParis)gaveapresentationon“QuantumTheoryin
theLightofaRelationalConceptionofKnowledge.”PhilippeGrangier(Depart-
ment of Physics,E´cole Polytechnique Paris)gave a talk on “Quantum Informa-
tion: From Fundamental Ideas to Experimental Implementations.” The sympo-
siumhostedthree tutorials:“ConceptualSpaces”givenby PeterBruza,“Quan-
tumIndeterminacyinSocialSciences:FromaTheoryofKnowledgetoaTheory
of Decision-Making and Behavior” given by Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky, and
“Quantum Search” given by Dominic Widdows.
These proceedings include the 21 accepted papers that were presented and
revisedbasedonthe reviewers’commentsandthe discussionatthe symposium.
We would like to take the opportunity to thank everybody who made this
symposiumpossible:theSteeringCommittee,theProgramCommitteemembers
fortheirreviewingjob,theProceedingsandthePublicityChairs,thoseresponsi-
ble for the website design and management, and all the conference participants
and presenters. We are grateful for the support given by the Paris School of
Economics and the Conservatoire National des Arts et M´etiers.
September 2012 Jerome R. Busemeyer
Franc¸ois Dubois
Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky
Massimo Melucci1
1 TheworkofMassimoMelucciintheseproceedingshasreceivedfundingfromtheEU
SeventhFrameworkProgramme(FP7/2007-2013)undergrantagreementn◦247590.
Organization
Steering Committee
Peter Bruza QueenslandUniversityofTechnology,Australia
William F. Lawless Paine College, USA
Donald A. Sofge Naval Research Laboratory,USA
Keith van Rijsbergen University of Glasgow, UK
Dominic Widdows Microsoft Bing, USA
General Chairs
Franc¸ois Dubois Conservatoire National des Arts et M´etiers,
France
Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky Paris School of Economics, France
Program Committee Chairs
Jerome R. Busemeyer Indiana University, USA
Massimo Melucci University of Padua, Italy
Program Committee
Diederik Aerts Free University of Brussels, Belgium
Sven Aerts Free University of Brussels, Belgium
Sachi Arafat University of Glasgow, UK
Harald Atmanspacher Institute for Frontier Areas of Psychology
and Mental Health (IGPP), Germany
Peter Bruza QueenslandUniversityofTechnology,Australia
Jerome R. Busemeyer Indiana University, USA
Bob Coecke Oxford University, UK
Trevor Cohen University of Texas, USA
Riccardo Franco Politecnico di Torino, Italy
Emmanuel Haven University of Leicester, UK
Andrei Khrennikov Linnaeus University, Sweden
Kirsty Kitto QueenslandUniversityofTechnology,Australia
Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky Paris School of Economics, France
William F. Lawless Paine College, USA
Massimo Melucci University of Padua, Italy
Jian-Yun Nie Universit´e de Montr´eal,Canada
Dusko Pavlovic Royal Holloway, University of London, UK
VIII Organization
Emmanuel M. Pothos Swansea University, UK
Donald A. Sofge Naval Research Laboratory,USA
Dawei Song The Open University, UK
Keith van Rijsbergen University of Glasgow, UK
Salvador E. Venegas-Andraca Tecnolo´gico de Monterrey, Mexico
Giuseppe Vitiello University of Salerno, Italy
Dominic Widdows Microsoft Bing, USA
Vyacheslav Yukalov Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Russia
Publicity Chair
Giorgio Maria Di Nunzio University of Padua, Italy
Proceedings Chair
Emanuele Di Buccio University of Padua, Italy
Website
Aneesha Bakharia QueenslandUniversityofTechnology,Australia
Table of Contents
The Quantum Inspired Modelling of Changing Attitudes and
Self-organising Societies........................................... 1
Kirsty Kitto, Fabio Boschetti, and Peter Bruza
On Least Action Principles for Discrete Quantum Scales .............. 13
Franc¸ois Dubois, Isabelle Greff, and Thomas H´elie
Real, Complex, and Binary Semantic Vectors........................ 24
Dominic Widdows and Trevor Cohen
The Guppy Effect as Interference .................................. 36
Diederik Aerts, Jan Broekaert, Liane Gabora, and Tomas Veloz
A Quantum Model for the Ellsberg and Machina Paradoxes ........... 48
Diederik Aerts, Sandro Sozzo, and Jocelyn Tapia
A Quantum-Like Model of Escherichia coli’s Metabolism Based
on Adaptive Dynamics............................................ 60
Masanari Asano, Irina Basieva, Andrei Khrennikov,
Masanori Ohya, Yoshiharu Tanaka, and Ichiro Yamato
Fractals, Dissipation and Coherent States ........................... 68
Giuseppe Vitiello
Hierarchical Bayesian Estimation of Quantum Decision Model
Parameters...................................................... 80
Jerome R. Busemeyer, Zheng Wang, and Jennifer S. Trueblood
Many Paths Lead to Discovery: Analogical Retrieval of Cancer
Therapies ....................................................... 90
Trevor Cohen, Dominic Widdows, Lance De Vine,
Roger Schvaneveldt, and Thomas C. Rindflesch
Emergence and Instability of Individual Identity ..................... 102
Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky and Jerome R. Busemeyer
Entanglement of Conceptual Entities in Quantum Model Theory
(QMod) ........................................................ 114
Diederik Aerts and Sandro Sozzo
Quantum Model Theory (QMod): Modeling Contextual Emergent
Entangled Interfering Entities ..................................... 126
Diederik Aerts and Sandro Sozzo
X Table of Contents
Quantum-Like Representation of Irrational Inference ................. 138
Masanari Asano, Irina Basieva, Andrei Khrennikov,
Masanori Ohya, and Yoshiharu Tanaka
Type Indeterminacy in Privacy Decisions: The Privacy Paradox
Revisited ....................................................... 148
Christian Flender and Gu¨nter Mu¨ller
Adaptive Dynamics andIts Applicationto ContextDependent Systems
Breaking the Classical Probability Law ............................. 160
Masanari Asano, Irina Basieva, Andrei Khrennikov,
Masanori Ohya, Yoshiharu Tanaka, and Ichiro Yamato
Modelling Word Activation in Semantic Networks: Three Scaled
Entanglement Models Compared................................... 172
David Galea, Peter Bruza, Kirsty Kitto, and Douglas Nelson
Quantum Entanglement and the Issue of Selective Influences
in Psychology:An Overview....................................... 184
Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov and Janne V. Kujala
Quantum-Like Behavior of Classical Systems ........................ 196
Thomas Filk
Connecting the Dots: Mass, Energy, Word Meaning, and Particle-Wave
Duality ......................................................... 207
S´andor Dar´anyi and Peter Wittek
Indiscernability and Mean Field, a Base of Quantum Interaction ....... 218
Michel Gondran and S´ebastien Lepaul
Social-Psychological Harmonic Oscillators in the Self-regulation
of Organizations and Systems ..................................... 227
William F. Lawless and Donald A. Sofge
Author Index.................................................. 239
The Quantum Inspired Modelling of Changing
Attitudes and Self-organising Societies
Kirsty Kitto1, Fabio Boschetti2,3, and Peter Bruza1
1 Information SystemsSchool, Queensland University of Technology
{kirsty.kitto,p.bruza}@qut.edu.au
2 Marine Research, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
3 School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, The Universityof Western Australia
[email protected]
Abstract. Weutilisethequantumdecisionmodels,nowwell-developed
in the QI community, to create a higher order social decision making
model. A simple Agent Based Model (ABM) of a society of agents with
changingattitudestowardsasocial issueispresented,wheretheprivate
attitudes of individuals in the system are represented using a geometric
structure inspired by quantum theory. We track the changing attitudes
ofthemembersofthatsociety,andtheirresultingpropensitiestoact,or
not, in a given social context. A number of new issues surrounding this
“scaling up” of quantum decision theories are discussed, as well as new
directions and opportunities.
Keywords: Attitudes,QuantumDecisionTheory,Context,Information
Minimisation, Self-organisation.
1 Introduction
The quantum inspired modelling of human decision making has become quite
advanced in recent years [1,2,3,4], and could now be regarded as a relatively
mature field in the Quantum Interaction (QI) community. In this paper we
proposethatthesetheoriescanbe ‘scaledup’ intotherealmofsocialmodelling.
In particular, we will show that the notion of an attitude as it arises in Social
Psychology[5]providesanaturalcandidateforaquantumstate,andintroducea
simpleextensiontothe quantumapproachwhichconsidersthemannerinwhich
the attitudes of a society of decision making agents will be influenced by two
broad factors: each agent’s natural internal disposition; and the social context
in which they are embedded (i.e. the other agents in the system).
When considering social systems, the notion of an attitude is a key, indis-
pensableconcept[6]. Attitudes driveanindividual’s overallevaluationofpeople
(including themselves), objects and issues [7], and so play a critical role in the
choices people make regarding their own health and security as well as
those of their families, friends, and nations. From purchase decisions
provoked by liking for a product to wars spurned by ethnic prejudices,
J.R.Busemeyeretal.(Eds.):QI2012,LNCS7620,pp.1–12,2012.
(cid:2)c Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg2012
2 K. Kitto, F. Boschetti, and P. Bruza
attitudes help to determine a wide variety of potentially consequential
outcomes. [7]
However, this very potentiality of attitudes makes them extremely difficult to
model.Howwillagivenpersonthinkabout‘globalwarming’vs‘climatechange’?
What if their daughter has just had her house flooded? Or if they are about to
make a very large tax payment that includes a carbon component? People’s
attitudesarenotstaticimmutableobjects,butchangeinresponsetopersuasion
[8], and the demands of cognitive consistency [9]. We often express different
attitudes and opinions in accordance with the social scenario we find ourselves
in [10,11], and it is frequently the case that an explicitly expressed attitude is
quite different from an internally held one [12].
Twomodelsofattitudechangearoseinthe1970’s;theElaborationLikelihood
Model(ELM)[13];andtheHeuristic-SystematicModel(HSM)[14].Bothutilise
a dual-process approach that takes a form of mental effort as its key switch-
ing variable. Where individuals are motivated to pay attention to a message, or
havethe cognitivecapacitiestoconsideritcarefully,anattitude changerequires
relatively high amounts of mental effort. In these high elaboration processes,
people’s attitudes will be determined by an effortful examination of all relevant
information, and so changing them will expend high amounts of cognitive en-
ergy. In contrast, other processes of persuasion require relatively little mental
effort on the part of the persuadee, resulting in attitudes that are determined
by factors like emotions, ‘gut feeling’, liking, and reference to authority. Sim-
ilar amounts of attitude change can be produced via either process, however,
the changes induced by the high mental effort processes are postulated to be
more persistent, resistant to counter-persuasion, and predictive of behaviour,
thanloweffortattitudechanges.Thedifferencebetweenthesetwoprocesseshas
a number of implications for public policy. In an era of high-frequency press
reporting periods (i.e. the 24 hour news cycle) we have entered a climate where
low effort attitudes appear to predominate [15,16], and the transitional nature
of this process could be seen to result in the apparent increase in undecided or
swinging voters in the modern age. However, few mathematically oriented or
computationally implementable models of these low effort processes exist, and
those thatdo tend to makeunrealistic commitments to the ontologicalstatus of
attitudes, implying that these are held in some objective sense and always have
awelldefinedvalue[17].We considerthis unlikelytobethe case;peopletendto
formtheir loweffortattitudes ‘onthe fly’, frequently changingtheminresponse
to the social context in which they are currently embedded.
We have recently proposed [18] that the very contextuality of the low effort
processes makes them prime candidates for a quantum inspired model. This
paperwillsummarisethatmodelinsection2beforemovingontoaconsideration
in section 3 of the implications that this model has for the QI community. We
will emphasise our model’s divergence from the more direct application of the
quantum formalismthat tends to be utilised by QI members, drawingattention
to it’s novel time evolution paradigm.
