probabilistic mixture
A Quantum-Inspired Analysis of Human Disambiguation Processes
Formal languages are essential for computer programming and are constructed to be easily processed by computers. In contrast, natural languages are much more challenging and instigated the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP). One major obstacle is the ubiquity of ambiguities. Recent advances in NLP have led to the development of large language models, which can resolve ambiguities with high accuracy. At the same time, quantum computers have gained much attention in recent years as they can solve some computational problems faster than classical computers. This new computing paradigm has reached the fields of machine learning and NLP, where hybrid classical-quantum learning algorithms have emerged. However, more research is needed to identify which NLP tasks could benefit from a genuine quantum advantage. In this thesis, we applied formalisms arising from foundational quantum mechanics, such as contextuality and causality, to study ambiguities arising from linguistics. By doing so, we also reproduced psycholinguistic results relating to the human disambiguation process. These results were subsequently used to predict human behaviour and outperformed current NLP methods.
- Europe > United Kingdom > England > Cambridgeshire > Cambridge (0.04)
- Europe > France (0.04)
- North America > United States > New York > New York County > New York City (0.04)
- (9 more...)
- Research Report > New Finding (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study > Negative Result (0.45)
- Government (0.92)
- Media > Film (0.45)
- Leisure & Entertainment > Sports (0.45)
- (3 more...)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Large Language Model (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Natural Language > Grammars & Parsing (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (1.00)
- (4 more...)
Inferring causal structure: a quantum advantage
Ried, Katja, Agnew, Megan, Vermeyden, Lydia, Janzing, Dominik, Spekkens, Robert W., Resch, Kevin J.
These authors contributed equally to this work. The real surprise, however, is that even if one only has the ability to passively observe the early system, the quantum correlations hold signatures of the causal structure--in other words, certain types of correlation do imply causation. In a recent paper, Fitzsimons, Jones and Vedral [3] defined a function of the observed correlations which acts as a witness of direct causal influence, by ruling out a purely common-cause explanation. We here present the larger framework that places this result on an equal footing with an analogous result for common-cause relations. The problem of using observed correlations to infer causal relations is relevant to a wide variety of scientific disciplines. Yet given correlations between just two classical variables, it is impossible to determine whether they arose from a causal influence of one on the other or a common cause influencing both, unless one can implement a randomized intervention. We here consider the problem of causal inference for quantum variables. We introduce causal tomography, which unifies and generalizes conventional quantum tomography schemes to provide a complete solution to the causal inference problem using a quantum analogue of a randomized trial. We furthermore show that, in contrast to the classical case, observed quantum correlations alone can sometimes provide a solution. We implement a quantum-optical experiment that allows us to control the causal relation between two optical modes, and two measurement schemes--one with and one without randomization-- that extract this relation from the observed correlations.
- North America > Canada > Ontario > Waterloo Region > Waterloo (0.04)
- North America > United States > New York (0.04)
- Europe > San Marino > Fiorentino > Fiorentino (0.04)
- Europe > Germany > Baden-Württemberg > Tübingen Region > Tübingen (0.04)
- Research Report > New Finding (0.93)
- Research Report > Experimental Study (0.66)