An inductive bias from quantum mechanics: learning order effects with non-commuting measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There are two major approaches to building good machine learning algorithms: feeding lots of data into large models or picking a model class with an “inductive bias” that suits the structure of the data. When taking the second approach as a starting point to design quantum algorithms for machine learning, it is important to understand how mathematical structures in quantum mechanics can lead to useful inductive biases in quantum models. In this work, we bring a collection of theoretical evidence from the quantum cognition literature to the field of quantum machine learning to investigate how non-commutativity of quantum observables can help to learn data with “order effects,” such as the changes in human answering patterns when swapping the order of questions in a survey. We design a multi-task learning setting in which a generative quantum model consisting of sequential learnable measurements can be adapted to a given task — or question order — by changing the order of observables, and we provide artificial datasets inspired by human psychology to carry out our investigation. Our first experimental simulations show that in some cases the quantum model learns more non-commutativity as the amount of order effect present in the data is increased and that the quantum model can learn to generate better samples for unseen question orders when trained on others — both signs that the model architecture suits the task.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".