Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Interconnections of Quantum, Machine, and Human Learning: Karl Gustafson
Interconnections of Quantum, Machine, and Human Learning: Karl Gustafson
Interconnections of Quantum, Machine, and Human Learning: Karl Gustafson
Karl Gustafson
Department of Mathematics, University of Colorado
Boulder, Colorado 80309–0395
gustafs@euclid.colorado.edu
and what usually comes out in the end is that they adopt a 2 (t) tall (b) blond (br) brown -
mental picture of particle, wave, wave-product, cloud, I have 3 (t) tall (r) red (bl) blue +
even been told ‘furry ball’, in order to visualize their exper- 4 (s) short (d) dark (bl) blue -
iment. 5 (t) tall (d) dark (bl) blue -
Thus to my mind, we do not yet understand well enough, 6 (t) tall (b) blond (bl) blue +
either mathematically or physically, the quantum entities 7 (t) tall (d) dark (br) brown -
about which we would like to build up a theory of Q.I., i.e., 8 (s) short (b) blond (br) brown -
quantitive intelligence. Until we do, perhaps quantum com- Classify:
puting in A.I. applications will just mostly be regarded as an 9 (s) short (d) dark (br) brown ...
A.I. tool. 10 (s) short (r) red (bl) blue ...
11 (s) short (r) red (br) brown ...
Recently this author has found the following fundamen-
12 (t) tall (r) red (br) brown ...
tal improvement in the Born probabilistic interpretation of
quantum mechanics. Suppose you have a quantum evolution
ψt = Ut ψo where ψo is the initial wave packet which you A word about the 4 classification schemes under scrutiny.
have prepared. Here Ut is the unitary family Ut = exp(iHt) Quinlan originally (1984) used the above problem to illus-
where H is the Hamiltonian governing the dynamics. Such trate the ID3 algorithm. This algorithm uses an information-
dynamics propagates any, and all, ψ0 which are in the do- theoretic criteria to construct a ‘minimal’ classification rule
main D(H) of the Hamiltonian H, into the future. The new from the given learning set C, the given examples 1 through
theorem is that Ut must always take D(H) one-to-one onto 8. Briefly (see our papers), one chooses either Height, Hair,
D(H), at all times. Recall that (not well known) D(H) is a or Eyes as the root (the top) of the decision tree. So one must
rather sparse subspace of the whole Hilbert space, for exam- choose between three decision trees. With root Hair, the de-
ple, it is only of Baire category one within the Hilbert space. cision tree immediately classifies 4 of the 8 objects. Eyes
as root only classifies 3 of the 8 objects at the first level. lyzes Feldman’s findings and agrees to some extent, but only
Height as root requires you to go to the second level before within the restricted domain of boolean concepts.
you can classify. The ID3 algorithm operates more quan- We would tend to agree with Chater. Moreover, to make
titatively and actually calculates the information gains you the point perhaps too strongly, we would argue that the
may achieve from each possible root choice. Information is Boolean concepts are not being learned, but are more close
measured by the usual p ln p entropy formula. Hair as root to a test of memorizing. We know from all our human test-
gains 0.454 bits, Eyes gains 0.347 bits, Height gains only ing that, in addition to the complexity of a pattern, there are
0.003 bits. So you choose the Hair root decision tree. Then many additional factors that affect the learning behavior of
you use that to assign classifications to the set C 0 of objects humans. See our papers for further discussion of these fac-
9 through 12 to be classified. tors.
We originally encountered this problem partially by acci- Testing human concept learning with only boolean con-
dent. Several of us quickly classified C 0 , independently but cepts does have the advantage of having at hand meaningful
identically, differently than did Quinlan’s ID3. Thereafter complexity measures. Chater raises the issue of how com-
we classified C 0 by several neural net algorithms trained on plexity should be measured in wider learning contexts. We
C. We also decided to compare the Pao-Hu descriptor-based believe, along with Chater, boolean concepts are not very
scheme, see the book (Pao, 1989). Thereafter we, almost in natural to human learning. If you read the human ‘reason-
the fashion of a hobby, obtained further human test sam- ings’ we list in our papers, you will find much support for
ples. The main finding was that humans, neural networks, our claim. Even the ‘simplest model’ our testees chose was
and Pao-Hu consistently favored the decision tree with root often not boolean inspired.
Eyes. Pao-Hu was of less interest to us (but we will resurrect The Pao-Hu descriptor-based clasification scheme we
it in the next section), so the interesting corollary finding was tested, was quite close to Feldman’s boolean context. It syn-
that machine learning (neural nets, in this case) and human thesizes a classification according to pattern conjunctions on
learning converged better than A.I. symbolic learning. a logical truth-set basis. We found its complexity quite un-
Without further ado, let me list some other significant appealing from a human point of view.
findings about human learning. Humans: After one deals with the problem of best classification phi-
• Seek No-Contradiction Rule. ◦ Do subset selection to losophy, the more important question of how to then general-
obtain this. ize arises. This is the real essence of human learning: to use
• Classify using Context. ◦ Even imagine context to do what you have learned to approach new or wider situations.
this. This led us to our concept of Backprediction as a measure
• Correlate, don’t average. ◦ Choose ‘simplest’ model. of validity of generalization. To be specific given several
I will discuss the no-contradiction rule further in Section 6. classifications of the set C 0 of objects 9 through 12, which
Pao-Hu will be brought into the next Section 5. Issues of is the ‘most meaningful’? ID3’s entropy based method and
context will be brought into Section 7. Humans, chose the ‘as simple as possible’ criterion. Neural
nets and Human’s chose the ‘best backprediction ability’.
Interconnection of Human
and A.I. Generalization Interconnection of Human and
Human concept learning has been long studied in the A.I. Quantum Learning
and educational communities. How humans extract rules Our examinations (Bernasconi and Gustafson 1992,
from given examples or patterns is central to understanding Bernasconi and Gustafson 1994, Bernasconi and Gustafson
human learning. Therefore, as we became more and more 1998) of human learning versus certain A.I. learning
interested in our human samples in the experiment described schemes revealed, among other interesting findings, that hu-
above. we decided to ask them to quickly write, if they cared mans will go to extreme lengths to avoid a decision that in-
to, at the bottom of their classification of the set C 0 , how they volves a contradiction. We also found that humans try very
arrived at their classification. The answers were very inter- hard to establish a context, even an imagined one, before
esting and led us to the findings I listed above. Secondly, making a choice or decision. We would like to interconnect,
we wondered about the validity of those classifications of or if you prefer, profitably contrast, those human reasoning
C 0 , since there is no unique correct ‘answer’. From these characteristics, with potential quantum learning, which for
considerations, we arrived at our Backprediction criterion of example permits coexistence of contradictory conclusions,
validity of generalizations. In this section I wish to comment and which may need to build context.
on our findings as compared to recent articles by (Feldman, We know of no current projects to compare human learn-
2000) and (Chater, 2000). ing to quantum learning, although perhaps they exist in con-
In particular, (Feldman, 2000) addresses human concept text unfamiliar to us. Quantum learning would seem to need
learning by carrying out human tests of the learning of to be probabalistic based. How will that mimic in any way
Boolean concepts. His main conclusion is that subjective Human learning? Or quantum learning, along the lines of
conceptual difficulty is well predicted by Boolean complex- our noncommutative operator trigonometry, may be geomet-
ity. He argues that ‘human conceptual difficulty reflects in- rically based. Or one might use fidelity, see e.g. (Nielsen
trinsic mathematical complexity after all, rather than some and Chuang, 2000), which combines probability, geometry,
idiosyncratic and uniquely human bias’. (Chater, 2000) ana- and information content. But these more resemble approxi-
mation, hence could be compared to human approximations, human bistable perception of ambiguous visual stimuli. One
rather than to human learnings. of the well-known examples of the latter in psychology is
It would be an interesting proposal then to ask, how may the Necker cube, whose forwardness and backwardness de-
we approach a new research field in which we try to make pend upon the perspective of the viewer. A cognitive quan-
quantum computing, or quantum information theory more tum Zeno effect is formulated whch theoretically permits
generally, resemble human learning? At the outset, we superpositions of pure perception states. Quantum games
would claim they are opposed. Human learning, with great which permit quantum (mixed) strategies which defeat clas-
fervor according to our studies, avoids contradictory conclu- sical game strategies have been recently studied, see (Du,
sions. Quantum mechanics, counterintuitively, often favors 2002). As much of classical game theory has been shown to
contradictory conclusions. Yet it seems that quantum su- underly human behavior in economics, sociology, and other
perpositions could enable human-like fuzzy reasonings. We human affairs, such developments could guide us toward a
also found in our human studies, a great need to place a ques- theory of quantum consciousness.
tion in a context, and if preferable, a familiar context, i.e.,
one based on earlier experiences, or intuition gained from Literature and Summary
general experience. Can we build intuition into quantum
reasoning? We refer the reader to our papers for related bibliography.
The combined citations there number in the hundreds and
we cannot attempt any comprehensive survey here. Of
Interconnection of Human and course the general quantum measurement, quantum com-
Quantum Consciousness puting, quantum foundations, machine learning, neural net-
As we become more speculative as we near the end of this work, artificial intelligence, Bell theory, Zeno theory litera-
paper, we may raise the issue of human learning as part of tures are each large and in some cases enormous and grow-
a more general human consciousness. Consciousness stud- ing. However, we did find in our machine versus human
ies are notoriously controversial, so as we have entered this learning investigations a much smaller literature: see our
room, we may as well adjoin to it a room of possible quan- papers for a discussion of this point. Also it may be said
tum consciousness. Having done so, we are overcome with that almost no investigators have been capable and interested
a desire to flee these rooms, these ghost rooms so vaguely enough to delve as deeply as we into the mathematical issues
defined. As we do so, let us try to mention a few thoughts in the Zeno measurement paradoxes. No other investigators
that just might have future value. have found or pursued the embedding of the Bell theory into
our noncommutative trigonometry, for the simple reason that
First we must try to define the four concepts: human
very few mathematicians or physicists know and understand
learning, human consciousness, quantum learning, quantum
the latter. Notwithstanding that comment, our investigations
consciousness. The first is well studied, the second is stud-
into the Bell and Zeno problems have been well received
ied but controversial, the last two so little studied that we
at several conferences by some experts in those domains.
refrain from stating definitions in the absence of enough em-
Although there is great interest in reversibility within the
pirical truth. (Rose, 1992) has written a book that attempts
quantum computing community, our own approach comes
a thorough study of memory, more specifically, the molecu-
from more than thirty years of looking at irreversibility from
lar chemistry that becomes human memory through human
the mathematical and statistical mechanical points of view.
learning experiences. Kandel later won a Nobel prize for es-
We have discussed the physical quantum mechanical exper-
tablishing that you must ask a neuron a question five times
iments referred to above with some of the best experimen-
before it will open up its willingness to adapt. So this is
talists in the world.
one of the mechanisms of human ‘consciousness’ that one
might try to emulate on a quantum computer. Our studies In this paper we have juxtaposed, taken two at a time, cer-
show the human need to establish a context before learning tain interconnections or potential interconnections between
can take place. Let us consider this need for context a kind quantum, machine, and human learning. Of course one may
of ‘consciousness’. What will quantum context be? What then take these all three together for further thought, discus-
will quantum ‘consciousness’ be? We hope it resembles na- sion, and perhaps fruitful further investigation.
ture more than logic. (Walker, 2000) has written a book that
attempts a study of the physics of consciousness. He takes Acknowledgements
the position that all the puzzles of quantum mechanics, all I would like to thank my colleague Jakob Bernasconi for
of its nonintuitiveness, is indeed reality, and a reality that pointing out the Feldman and Chater articles to me. I
we must accept and discover the true meanings thereof. He have profited from numerous discussions with Harald At-
argues that the human mind is a quantum mind whose fluctu- manspacher, Han Primas, Emilios Bouratinos, Ioannis An-
ations are the basis of human consciousness. They are suffi- toniou, concerning the foundations of quantum mechanics
ciently robust that they can recognize low probability states and consciousness.
that would be suppressed by an automatic man-made quan-
tum computer. If that is so, then we should insist that quan-
tum (computer) ‘consciousness’ also possess this property. References
(Atmanspacher, Filk, Römer, 2004) construct a generalized Antoniou, I., Sadovnichy, V., and Walther, H. 2003. The
quantum theoretical framework to model the dynamics of Physics of Communication. Singapore:World Scientific.
Atmanspacher, H., Filk, T., and Römer, H. 2004. Quantum Gustafson, K. 2003b. The Quantum Zeno Paradox and
Zeno Features of Bistable Perception. Biological Cybernet- the Counter Problem. In Foundations of Probability and
ics 90:33–40. Physics-2 (Khrennikov, A., ed.), 225–236. Sweden:Växjo
Bernasconi, J., and Gustafson, K. 1992. Human and Ma- University Press.
chine ‘Quick Modelling’. Advances in Neural Information Gustafson, K. 2003c. Bell’s Inequalities. In The Physics of
Processing Systems 4:1151–1158. Communication (Antoniou, I., Sadovnichy, V., and Walther,
Bernasconi, J., and Gustafson, K. 1994. Inductive Inference H., eds.), 534–554. Singapore:World-Scientific.
and Neural Nets. Network: Comput. Neural Syst. 5:203– Gustafson, K. 2004. Microscopic Irreversibility. Discrete
228. Dynamics in Nature and Society 8:155–168.
Bernasconi, J., and Gustafson, K. 1998. Contextual Quick- Gustafson, K. 2005. Bell and Zeno. International J. of The-
Learning and Generalization by Humans and Machines. oretical Physics 44:1931–1940.
Network: Comput. Neural Syst. 9:85–106. Gustafson, K. 2006a. Noncommutative Trigonometry. Op-
Chater, N. 2000. The Logic of Human Learning. Nature erator Theory: Advances and Applications 167:127–155.
407:572–573. Gustafson, K. 2006b. The Trigonometry of Matrix Statistics.
Du, J., Li, H., Xu, X., Shi, M., Wu, J., Zhou, X., and Han, International Statistical Review 74:187–202.
R. 2002. Experimental Realization of Quantum Games and Gustafson, K. 2007a. Reversibility and Regularity. Interna-
Quantum Strategies. Phys. Rev. Letters 88:137902. tional J. of Theoretical Physics. Forthcoming.
Feldman, J. 2000. Minimization of Boolean Complexity in Gustafson, K. 2007b. Noncommutative Trigonometry
Human Concept Learning. Nature 407:630–633. and Quantum Mechanics. Advances in Deterministic and
Stochastic Analysis. Forthcoming.
Gustafson, K. 1990. Reversibility in Neural Processing Sys-
Gustafson, K., and Sartoris, G. 1998. Assigning Initial
tems. In Statistical Mechanics of Neural Networks, (Gar-
Weights in Feedforward Neural Networks. In Proc. 8th
rido, L., ed.) Springer Lecture Notes in Physics. 368, 269–
IFAC Symposium on Large Scale Systems (Koussoulas, N.,
285. Berlin:Springer.
and Groumpos, P., eds.), 950–955. Patras:Pergamon Press.
Gustafson, K. 1997a. Operator Spectral States. Computers
Nielsen, M., and Chuang, I. 2000. Quantum Computation
Math. Applic. 34:467–508.
and Quantum Information. Cambridge:Cambridge Univer-
Gustafson, K. 1997b. Lectures on Computational Fluid Dy- sity Press.
namics, Mathematical Physics, and Linear Algebra. Singa- Pao, Y. 1989 Adaptive Pattern Recognition and Neural Net-
pore:World Scientific. works. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.
Gustafson, K. 1998a. Internal Sigmoid Dynamics in Feed- Quinlan, J. 1984. Learning Efficient Classification Pro-
forward Neural Networks. Connection Science 10:43–73. cedures and Their Application to Chess End Games. In
Gustafson, K. 1998b. Ergodic Learning Algorithms. In Un- Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach
conventional Models of Computation (Calude, C., Casti, J., (Michalski, R., Carbonell, J., Mitchell, T., eds.) 463–482.
and Dinneen, M., eds.), 228–242. Singapore:Springer. Berlin:Springer.
Gustafson, K. 1998c. Internal Dynamics of Backpropaga- Rose, S. 1992. The Making of Memory. New
tion Learning. In Proceedings Ninth Australian Conference York:Doubleday.
on Neural Networks (Downs, T, Frean, M., and Gallagher, Walker, E. 20000. The Physics of Consciousness. Cam-
M., eds.), 179–182. Brisbane:University of Queensland. bridge, MA:Perseus.
Gustafson, K. 1999. The Geometry of Quantum Proba- Weiss, S., and Kulikowski, C. 1991. Computer Systems That
bilities. In On Quanta, Mind, and Matter (Atmanspacher, Learn. San Mateo, CA:Morgan Kaufmann.
H., Anann, A., Mueller–Herold, U., eds.), 151–164. Dor-
drecht:Kluwer.
Gustafson, K. 2000. Quantum Trigonometry. Infinite Di-
mensional Analysis, Quantum Probability, and Related Top-
ics 3:33-52.
Gustafson, K. 2001. Probability, Geometry, and Irreversibil-
ity in Quantum Mechanics. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals
8:2849–2858.
Gustafson, K. 2002a. CP-Violation as Antieigenvector-
Breaking. Advances in Chemical Physics 122:239–258.
Gustafson, K. 2002b. Distinguishing Discretization and
Discrete Dynamics, With Application to Ecology, Machine
Learning, and Atomic Physics. In Structure and Dynamics
of Nonlinear Wave Phenomena (Tanaka, M., ed.), 100-111.
Kyoto:RIMS Kokyuroka 1271.
Gustafson, K. 2003a. Bell’s Inequality and the Accardi–
Gustafson Inequality. In Foundations of Probability and
Physics-2 (Khrennikov, A., ed.), 207–223. Sweden:Växjo
University Press.