On the use of discrete-time quantum walks in decision theory.

Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101285081 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1932-6203 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19326203 NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS One Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science

Decision Making*/physiology ; Quantum Theory*; Cognition/physiology ; Decision Theory ; Humans ; Reaction Time

We present a short review of discrete-time quantum walks (DTQW) as a potentially useful and rich formalism to model human decision-making. We present a pedagogical introduction of the underlying formalism and main structural properties. We suggest that DTQW are particularly suitable for combining the two strands of literature on evidence accumulator models and on the quantum formalism of cognition. Due to the additional spin degree of freedom, models based on DTQW allow for a natural modeling of model choice and confidence rating in separate bases. Levels of introspection and self-assessment during choice deliberations can be modeled by the introduction of a probability for measurement of either position and/or spin of the DTQW, where each measurement act leads to a partial decoherence (corresponding to a step towards rationalization) of the deliberation process. We show how quantum walks predict observed probabilistic misperception like S-shaped subjective probability and conjunction fallacy. Our framework emphasizes the close relationship between response times and type of preferences and of responses. In particular, decision theories based on DTQW do not need to invoke two systems ("fast" and "slow") as in dual process theories. Within our DTQW framework, the two fast and slow systems are replaced by a single system, but with two types of self-assessment or introspection. The "thinking fast" regime is obtained with no or little self-assessment, while the "thinking slow" regime corresponds to a strong rate of self-assessment. We predict a trade-off between speed and accuracy, as empirically reported.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Psychol Rev. 1997 Apr;104(2):266-300. (PMID: 9127583)
Trends Cogn Sci. 2001 Jan 1;5(1):10-16. (PMID: 11164731)
Top Cogn Sci. 2013 Oct;5(4):818-43. (PMID: 24019237)
J Exp Psychol. 1965 May;69:483-9. (PMID: 14285603)
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2006 Jun;59(6):1070-100. (PMID: 16885144)
Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 21;7(1):8942. (PMID: 28827699)
Psychol Rev. 1993 Jul;100(3):432-59. (PMID: 8356185)
Annu Rev Psychol. 1990;41:1-19. (PMID: 18331187)
Sci Rep. 2021 Apr 14;11(1):8169. (PMID: 33854162)
Phys Rev Lett. 2009 May 8;102(18):180501. (PMID: 19518851)
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 May;8(3):223-41. (PMID: 26172965)
J Mem Lang. 2015 Oct 1;84:224-245. (PMID: 26236091)
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 14;15(12):e0243661. (PMID: 33315897)
J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1978 Nov;4(6):579-81. (PMID: 731196)
J Pers. 1953 Mar;21(3):329-35. (PMID: 13053388)
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Aug 25;112(34):10645-50. (PMID: 26261322)
Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:451-82. (PMID: 21126183)
Sci Rep. 2016 Mar 31;6:23812. (PMID: 27030372)
Top Cogn Sci. 2014 Jan;6(1):79-90. (PMID: 24259280)
Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2020 Jul;11(4):e1526. (PMID: 32107890)
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2012 Jul 1;118(2):179-188. (PMID: 22711977)
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2017 Jul;146(7):968-987. (PMID: 28447840)
Front Psychol. 2012 May 14;3:138. (PMID: 22593747)
Entropy (Basel). 2020 Sep 04;22(9):. (PMID: 33286759)
Cognition. 2009 Jan;110(1):51-64. (PMID: 19036359)
Cogn Sci. 2011 Nov-Dec;35(8):1518-52. (PMID: 21951058)
Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Jan;12(1):13-6. (PMID: 18063405)
Phys Rev A. 1993 Aug;48(2):1687-1690. (PMID: 9909772)
Front Psychol. 2016 Sep 22;7:1402. (PMID: 27713710)

Date Created: 20220830 Date Completed: 20220902 Latest Revision: 20220913

20231215

PMC9426940

10.1371/journal.pone.0273551

36040872