This paper demonstrates that some non-classical models of human decision-making can be run successfully as circuits on quantum computers. Since the 1960s, many observed cognitive behaviors have been shown to violate rules based on classical probability and set theory. For example, the order in which questions are posed in a survey affects whether participants answer 'yes' or 'no', so the population that answers 'yes' to both questions cannot be modeled as the intersection of two fixed sets. It can, however, be modeled as a sequence of projections carried out in different orders. This and other examples have been described successfully using quantum probability, which relies on comparing angles between subspaces rather than volumes between subsets. Now in the early 2020s, quantum computers have reached the point where some of these quantum cognitive models can be implemented and investigated on quantum hardware, by representing the mental states in qubit registers, and the cognitive operations and decisions using different gates and measurements. This paper develops such quantum circuit representations for quantum cognitive models, focusing particularly on modeling order effects and decision-making under uncertainty. The claim is not that the human brain uses qubits and quantum circuits explicitly (just like the use of Boolean set theory does not require the brain to be using classical bits), but that the mathematics shared between quantum cognition and quantum computing motivates the exploration of quantum computers for cognition modeling. Key quantum properties include superposition, entanglement, and collapse, as these mathematical elements provide a common language between cognitive models, quantum hardware, and circuit implementations.

Many real-life scenarios require humans to make difficult trade-offs: do we always follow all the traffic rules or do we violate the speed limit in an emergency? These scenarios force us to evaluate the trade-off between collective norms and our own personal objectives. To create effective AI-human teams, we must equip AI agents with a model of how humans make trade-offs in complex, constrained environments. These agents will be able to mirror human behavior or to draw human attention to situations where decision making could be improved. To this end, we propose a novel inverse reinforcement learning (IRL) method for learning implicit hard and soft constraints from demonstrations, enabling agents to quickly adapt to new settings. In addition, learning soft constraints over states, actions, and state features allows agents to transfer this knowledge to new domains that share similar aspects. We then use the constraint learning method to implement a novel system architecture that leverages a cognitive model of human decision making, multi-alternative decision field theory (MDFT), to orchestrate competing objectives. We evaluate the resulting agent on trajectory length, number of violated constraints, and total reward, demonstrating that our agent architecture is both general and achieves strong performance. Thus we are able to capture and replicate human-like trade-offs from demonstrations in environments when constraints are not explicit.

Order effects occur when judgments about a hypothesis's probability given a sequence of information do not equal the probability of the same hypothesis when the information is reversed. Different experiments have been performed in the literature that supports evidence of order effects. We proposed a Bayesian update model for order effects where each question can be thought of as a mini-experiment where the respondents reflect on their beliefs. We showed that order effects appear, and they have a simple cognitive explanation: the respondent's prior belief that two questions are correlated. The proposed Bayesian model allows us to make several predictions: (1) we found certain conditions on the priors that limit the existence of order effects; (2) we show that, for our model, the QQ equality is not necessarily satisfied (due to symmetry assumptions); and (3) the proposed Bayesian model has the advantage of possessing fewer parameters than its quantum counterpart.

Categorization is a significant task in decision-making, which is a key part of human behavior. An interference effect is caused by categorization in some cases, which breaks the total probability principle. A negation quantum model (NQ model) is developed in this article to predict the interference. Taking the advantage of negation to bring more information in the distribution from a different perspective, the proposed model is a combination of the negation of a probability distribution and the quantum decision model. Information of the phase contained in quantum probability and the special calculation method to it can easily represented the interference effect. The results of the proposed NQ model is closely to the real experiment data and has less error than the existed models.

Two different dynamic models for belief change during evidence monitoring were evaluated: Markov and quantum. They were empirically tested with an experiment in which participants monitored evidence for an initial period of time, made a probability rating, then monitored more evidence, before making a second rating. The models were qualitatively tested by manipulating the time intervals in a manner that provided a test for interference effects of the first rating on the second. The Markov model predicted no interference whereas the quantum model predicted interference. A quantitative comparison of the two models was also carried out using a generalization criterion method: the parameters were fit to data from one set of time intervals, and then these same parameters were used to predict data from another set of time intervals. The results indicated that some features of both Markov and quantum models are needed to accurately account for the results.

We propose an alternative and unifying framework for decision-making that, by using quantum mechanics, provides more generalised cognitive and decision models with the ability to represent more information than classical models. This framework can accommodate and predict several cognitive biases reported in Lieder & Griffiths without heavy reliance on heuristics nor on assumptions of the computational resources of the mind. Expected utility theory and classical probabilities tell us what people should do if employing traditionally rational thought, but do not tell us what people do in reality (Machina, 2009). Under this principle, L&G propose an architecture for cognition that can serve as an intermediary layer between Neuroscience and Computation. Whilst instances where large expenditures of cognitive resources occur are theoretically alluded to, the model primarily assumes a preference for fast, heuristic-based processing.

In this paper, we make a review on the concepts of rationality across several different fields, namely in economics, psychology and evolutionary biology and behavioural ecology. We review how processes like natural selection can help us understand the evolution of cognition and how cognitive biases might be a consequence of this natural selection. In the end we argue that humans are not irrational, but rather rationally bounded and we complement the discussion on how quantum cognitive models can contribute for the modelling and prediction of human paradoxical decisions.

We designed a grid world task to study human planning and re-planning behavior in an unknown stochastic environment. In our grid world, participants were asked to travel from a random starting point to a random goal position while maximizing their reward. Because they were not familiar with the environment, they needed to learn its characteristics from experience to plan optimally. Later in the task, we randomly blocked the optimal path to investigate whether and how people adjust their original plans to find a detour. To this end, we developed and compared 12 different models. These models were different on how they learned and represented the environment and how they planned to catch the goal. The majority of our participants were able to plan optimally. We also showed that people were capable of revising their plans when an unexpected event occurred. The result from the model comparison showed that the model-based reinforcement learning approach provided the best account for the data and outperformed heuristics in explaining the behavioral data in the re-planning trials.

Human choice is complex in two ways. First, human choice often shows complex dependency on available alternatives. Second, human choice is often made after examining complex items such as images. The recently proposed choice model based on the restricted Boltzmann machine (RBM choice model) has been proved to represent three typical phenomena of human choice, which addresses the first complexity. We extend the RBM choice model to a deep choice model (DCM) to deal with the features of items, which are ignored in the RBM choice model. We then use deep learning to extract latent features from images and plug those latent features as input to the DCM. Our experiments show that the DCM adequately learns the choice that involves both of the two complexities in human choice.

A general tension-reduction (GTR) model was recently considered to derive quantum probabilities as (universal) averages over all possible forms of non-uniform fluctuations, and explain their considerable success in describing experimental situations also outside of the domain of physics, for instance in the ambit of quantum models of cognition and decision. Yet, this result also highlighted the possibility of observing violations of the predictions of the Born rule, in those situations where the averaging would not be large enough, or would be altered because of the combination of multiple measurements. In this article we show that this is indeed the case in typical psychological measurements exhibiting question order effects, by showing that their statistics of outcomes are inherently non-Hilbertian, and require the larger framework of the GTR-model to receive an exact mathematical description. We also consider another unsolved problem of quantum cognition: response replicability. It is has been observed that when question order effects and response replicability occur together, the situation cannot be handled anymore by quantum theory. However, we show that it can be easily and naturally described in the GTR-model. Based on these findings, we motivate the adoption in cognitive science of a hidden-measurements interpretation of the quantum formalism, and of its GTR-model generalization, as the natural interpretational framework explaining the data of psychological measurements on conceptual entities.