Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Journal of Choice Modelling

Open System Model of Choice and Response Time

Gunnar Paul Epping, Peter D. Kvam, Timothy Joseph Pleskac, Jerome R. Busemeyer

Published Feb 2, 2022• 8 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Sequential sampling models have provided accurate accounts of people’s choice, response time, and preference strength in value-based decision-making tasks. Conventionally, these models are developed as Markov-type processes (such as random walks or diffusion processes) following the Kolmogorov axioms. Quantum probability theory has been proposed as an alternative framework upon which to develop models of cognition, including quantum random walk models. When modeling people's behavior during decision-making tasks, previous work has demonstrated that both the Markov and quantum models have their respective strengths. Recently, the open system model, which is a hybrid version of the Markov and quantum models, has been shown to provide a more accurate account of preference strength compared to the Markov and quantum models in isolation. In this work, we extend the open system model to make predictions on pairwise choice and response time and compare it to the Markov and quantum random walkmodels.

DOI
10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100453

Related papers

Application of Quantum—Markov Open System Models to Human Cognition and Decision

Jerome R. Busemeyer, Qizi Zhang, Sivasubramanya Nadar Balakrishnan +1 more

Markov processes, such as random walk models, have been successfully used by cognitive and neural scientists to model human choice behavior and decision time for over 50 years. Recently, quantum walk models have been introduced as an alternative way to model the dynamics of human choice and confidence across time. Empirical evidence points to the need for both types of processes, and open system models provide a way to incorporate them both into a single process. However, some of the constraints required by open system models present challenges for achieving this goal. The purpose of this article is to address these challenges and formulate open system models that have good potential to make important advancements in cognitive science.

Entropy•Sep 4, 2020•25 citations

What about quantum dynamics? More advanced principles

Jerome R. Busemeyer, Peter Bruza

What about a process theory? How does quantum theory explain changes in confidence across time or how does quantum theory predict the time that it takes to make a decision? So far we have only made use of the structural part of quantum theory introduced in Chapter 2. This chapter introduces some of the basic principles for quantum dynamics. It is useful to compare quantum dynamics with Markov dynamics (Howard, 1971). Markov theory is a general mathematical framework for describing probabilistic-dynamic systems, which is commonly used in all areas of cognitive and decision sciences. For example, it is the mathematical basis that underlies random walk/diffusion models of decision making (Busemeyer & Diederich, 2009), or stochastic models of information processing (Townsend & Ashby, 1983), or multinomial processing tree models of memory retrieval (Batchelder & Reiffer, 1999), or the even more general field of stochastic processes (Bhattacharya & Waymire, 1990). Quantum theory provides an alternative general mathematical framework for describing probabilistic-dynamic systems (Gudder, 1979). However, quantum theory is similar in many ways to Markov theory, and so if you already know Markov theory, then it will be easy to learn about quantum dynamics too. This chapter introduces the Kolmogorov forward equation used to describe time evolution in Markov models, as well as the quantum analogue – the Schrödinger equation – which describes time evolution in quantum models. This chapter examines the similarities and differences between these two types of evolution, and why they are both useful for cognitive and decision modelling.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jul 26, 2012•0 citations

Temporal oscillations in preference strength provide evidence for an open system model of constructed preference

Peter D. Kvam, Jerome R. Busemeyer, Timothy Joseph Pleskac

The decision process is often conceptualized as a constructive process in which a decision maker accumulates information to form preferences about the choice options and ultimately make a response. Here we examine how these constructive processes unfold by tracking dynamic changes in preference strength. Across two experiments, we observed that mean preference strength systematically oscillated over time and found that eliciting a choice early in time strongly affected the pattern of preference oscillation later in time. Preferences following choices oscillated between being stronger than those without prior choice and being weaker than those without choice. To account for these phenomena, we develop an open system dynamic model which merges the dynamics of Markov random walk processes with those of quantum walk processes. This model incorporates two sources of uncertainty: epistemic uncertainty about what preference state a decision maker has at a particular point in time; and ontic uncertainty about what decision or judgment will be observed when a person has some preference state. Representing these two sources of uncertainty allows the model to account for the oscillations in preference as well as the effect of choice on preference formation.

Scientific Reports•Apr 14, 2021•45 citations

Open Parallel Cooperative and Competitive Decision Processes: A Potential Provenance for Quantum Probability Decision Models

Ian Fuss, Danielle Navarro

In recent years quantum probability models have been used to explain many aspects of human decision making, and as such quantum models have been considered a viable alternative to Bayesian models based on classical probability. One criticism that is often leveled at both kinds of models is that they lack a clear interpretation in terms of psychological mechanisms. In this paper we discuss the mechanistic underpinnings of a quantum walk model of human decision making and response time. The quantum walk model is compared to standard sequential sampling models, and the architectural assumptions of both are considered. In particular, we show that the quantum model has a natural interpretation in terms of a cognitive architecture that is both massively parallel and involves both co-operative (excitatory) and competitive (inhibitory) interactions between units. Additionally, we introduce a family of models that includes aspects of the classical and quantum walk models.

Topics in Cognitive Science•Sep 9, 2013•45 citations

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

Ming Chen, Giuseppe M. Ferro, Didier Sornette

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.

PLoS ONE•Aug 30, 2022•3 citations

Comparison of Markov versus quantum dynamical models of human decision making

Jerome R. Busemeyer, Peter D. Kvam, Timothy Joseph Pleskac

What kind of dynamic decision process do humans use to make decisions? In this article, two different types of processes are reviewed and compared: Markov and quantum. Markov processes are based on the idea that at any given point in time a decision maker has a definite and specific level of support for available choice alternatives, and the dynamic decision process is represented by a single trajectory that traces out a path across time. When a response is requested, a person's decision or judgment is generated from the current location along the trajectory. By contrast, quantum processes are founded on the idea that a person's state can be represented by a superposition over different degrees of support for available choice options, and that the dynamics of this state form a wave moving across levels of support over time. When a response is requested, a decision or judgment is constructed out of the superposition by "actualizing" a specific degree or range of degrees of support to create a definite state. The purpose of this article is to introduce these two contrasting theories, review empirical studies comparing the two theories, and identify conditions that determine when each theory is more accurate and useful than the other. This article is categorized under: Economics > Individual Decision-Making Psychology > Reasoning and Decision Making Psychology > Theory and Methods.

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science•Feb 27, 2020•36 citations
Sequential sampling models have provided accurate accounts of people’s choice, response time, and preference strength in value-based decision-making tasks. Conventionally, these models are developed as Markov-type processes (such as random walks or diffusion processes) following the Kolmogorov axioms. Quantum probability theory has been proposed as an alternative framework upon which to develop models of cognition, including quantum random walk models. When modeling people's behavior during decision-making tasks, previous work has demonstrated that both the Markov and quantum models have their respective strengths. Recently, the open system model, which is a hybrid version of the Markov and quantum models, has been shown to provide a more accurate account of preference strength compared to the Markov and quantum models in isolation. In this work, we extend the open system model to make predictions on pairwise choice and response time and compare it to the Markov and quantum random walkmodels.
Markov processes, such as random walk models, have been successfully used by cognitive and neural scientists to model human choice behavior and decision time for over 50 years. Recently, quantum walk models have been introduced as an alternative way to model the dynamics of human choice and confidence across time. Empirical evidence points to the need for both types of processes, and open system models provide a way to incorporate them both into a single process. However, some of the constraints required by open system models present challenges for achieving this goal. The purpose of this article is to address these challenges and formulate open system models that have good potential to make important advancements in cognitive science.
What about a process theory? How does quantum theory explain changes in confidence across time or how does quantum theory predict the time that it takes to make a decision? So far we have only made use of the structural part of quantum theory introduced in Chapter 2. This chapter introduces some of the basic principles for quantum dynamics. It is useful to compare quantum dynamics with Markov dynamics (Howard, 1971). Markov theory is a general mathematical framework for describing probabilistic-dynamic systems, which is commonly used in all areas of cognitive and decision sciences. For example, it is the mathematical basis that underlies random walk/diffusion models of decision making (Busemeyer & Diederich, 2009), or stochastic models of information processing (Townsend & Ashby, 1983), or multinomial processing tree models of memory retrieval (Batchelder & Reiffer, 1999), or the even more general field of stochastic processes (Bhattacharya & Waymire, 1990). Quantum theory provides an alternative general mathematical framework for describing probabilistic-dynamic systems (Gudder, 1979). However, quantum theory is similar in many ways to Markov theory, and so if you already know Markov theory, then it will be easy to learn about quantum dynamics too. This chapter introduces the Kolmogorov forward equation used to describe time evolution in Markov models, as well as the quantum analogue – the Schrödinger equation – which describes time evolution in quantum models. This chapter examines the similarities and differences between these two types of evolution, and why they are both useful for cognitive and decision modelling.
The decision process is often conceptualized as a constructive process in which a decision maker accumulates information to form preferences about the choice options and ultimately make a response. Here we examine how these constructive processes unfold by tracking dynamic changes in preference strength. Across two experiments, we observed that mean preference strength systematically oscillated over time and found that eliciting a choice early in time strongly affected the pattern of preference oscillation later in time. Preferences following choices oscillated between being stronger than those without prior choice and being weaker than those without choice. To account for these phenomena, we develop an open system dynamic model which merges the dynamics of Markov random walk processes with those of quantum walk processes. This model incorporates two sources of uncertainty: epistemic uncertainty about what preference state a decision maker has at a particular point in time; and ontic uncertainty about what decision or judgment will be observed when a person has some preference state. Representing these two sources of uncertainty allows the model to account for the oscillations in preference as well as the effect of choice on preference formation.
In recent years quantum probability models have been used to explain many aspects of human decision making, and as such quantum models have been considered a viable alternative to Bayesian models based on classical probability. One criticism that is often leveled at both kinds of models is that they lack a clear interpretation in terms of psychological mechanisms. In this paper we discuss the mechanistic underpinnings of a quantum walk model of human decision making and response time. The quantum walk model is compared to standard sequential sampling models, and the architectural assumptions of both are considered. In particular, we show that the quantum model has a natural interpretation in terms of a cognitive architecture that is both massively parallel and involves both co-operative (excitatory) and competitive (inhibitory) interactions between units. Additionally, we introduce a family of models that includes aspects of the classical and quantum walk models.
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.
What kind of dynamic decision process do humans use to make decisions? In this article, two different types of processes are reviewed and compared: Markov and quantum. Markov processes are based on the idea that at any given point in time a decision maker has a definite and specific level of support for available choice alternatives, and the dynamic decision process is represented by a single trajectory that traces out a path across time. When a response is requested, a person's decision or judgment is generated from the current location along the trajectory. By contrast, quantum processes are founded on the idea that a person's state can be represented by a superposition over different degrees of support for available choice options, and that the dynamics of this state form a wave moving across levels of support over time. When a response is requested, a decision or judgment is constructed out of the superposition by "actualizing" a specific degree or range of degrees of support to create a definite state. The purpose of this article is to introduce these two contrasting theories, review empirical studies comparing the two theories, and identify conditions that determine when each theory is more accurate and useful than the other. This article is categorized under: Economics > Individual Decision-Making Psychology > Reasoning and Decision Making Psychology > Theory and Methods.