Skip to main content
Log in

From conceptual spaces to quantum concepts: formalising and learning structured conceptual models

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Quantum Machine Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article we present a new modelling framework for structured concepts using a category-theoretic generalisation of conceptual spaces, and show how the conceptual representations can be learned automatically from data, using two very different instantiations: one classical and one quantum. A contribution of the work is a thorough category-theoretic formalisation of our framework. We claim that the use of category theory, and in particular the use of string diagrams to describe quantum processes, helps elucidate some of the most important features of our approach. We build upon Gärdenfors’ classical framework of conceptual spaces, in which cognition is modelled geometrically through the use of convex spaces, which in turn factorise in terms of simpler spaces called domains. We show how concepts from the domains of shape, colour, size and position can be learned from images of simple shapes, where concepts are represented as Gaussians in the classical implementation, and quantum effects in the quantum one. In the classical case we develop a new model which is inspired by the \(\beta \)-VAE model of concepts, but is designed to be more closely connected with language, so that the names of concepts form part of the graphical model. In the quantum case, concepts are learned by a hybrid classical-quantum network trained to perform concept classification, where the classical image processing is carried out by a convolutional neural network and the quantum representations are produced by a parameterised quantum circuit. Finally, we consider the question of whether our quantum models of concepts can be considered conceptual spaces in the Gärdenfors sense.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that we are not making any claims of “quantum supremacy” (Preskill 2012) for the particular set of quantum models that we implement in this article. However, we do anticipate the possibility of quantum models of concepts satisfying our framework which require quantum hardware for their efficient training and deployment, especially as we scale to more realistic datasets and larger quantum circuits.

  2. Section 2.6 describes entanglement; we leave the use of partial orders in experiments for future work.

  3. For example if \(f \le g\) then \(h \circ f \le h \circ g\), \(f \circ h \le g \circ h\) and \(f \otimes h \le g \otimes h\) where h is any morphism h of an appropriate type for each case.

  4. Later we will define instances as special cases of points. Instances and points differ in quantum models, because of entanglement, but coincide classically.

  5. Henceforth we use the generic term “model” rather than “space” since a conceptual model can be defined in a category without any spatial character.

  6. Here we use the standard definition of integration on a measurable space, which exists since \(g(-,A)\) is measurable and bounded in [0, 1] by assumption.

  7. Here we use the standard “bra-ket” notation whereby vectors and linear functionals on \(\mathcal {H}\) are written in the form \(|{\psi }\rangle \), \(\langle {\phi }|\) respectively. Then for a unit vector \(\psi \in \mathcal {H}\), \(|{\psi }\rangle \langle {\psi }|\) is the density operator of the corresponding pure state on \(\mathcal {H}\).

  8. In this article “combination” of concepts is always meant in this sense. However there are many distinct meaningful operations on concepts which could also be called their combination, such as the more conjunction-like notion of combining “pet” and “fish” into “pet fish” (Aerts and Gabora 2005).

  9. In this section we use bold font for variables, e.g. the conceptual space \(\textbf{Z}\), to be consistent with the machine learning literature.

  10. The question of whether, and how, the level of supervision could be reduced and the domains learned automatically is an ongoing debate (Higgins et al. 2017; Locatello et al. 2019).

  11. The same patterns were observed on the development data. We used the training data since this gives denser plots.

  12. The idea of plotting transitions along a dimension is taken from Higgins et al. (2017).

  13. The entangling layer is self-inverse, so that two layers allow us to implement a rotation on any qubit. A swap operation on any pair of qubits can be implemented using three layers, and from this any CX gate. Hence we may implement the universal gate set given by single-qubit phase and Clifford gates; see, for example, Van de Wetering (2021).

  14. In Section 4.2.2 below we investigate how the addition of a decoder can affect the instance and concept representations.

  15. Of course there is nothing to prevent us from using more than one qubit per domain, in order to provide a larger Hilbert space in which to represent the additional colours, but the visualisation is harder with more qubits.

  16. One possibility for future work is to develop and implement a “quantum VAE” (Khoshaman et al. 2018) for concept modelling, and have a generative model in which all parts of the model are quantum.

References

  • Abramson J, Ahuja A, Barr I, Brussee A, Carnevale F, Cassin M (2020) DeepMind-interactive-agents-group. Imitating Interactive Intelligence arXiv:2012.05672

  • Aerts D (2009) Quantum structure in cognition. J Math Psychol 53(5):314–348

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Aerts D, Gabora L (2005) A state-context-property model of concepts and their combinations I: the structure of the sets of contexts and properties. Kybernetes 34:151–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aisbett J, Gibbon G (2001) A general formulation of conceptual spaces as a meso level representation. Artif Intell 133(1–2):189–232

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bechberger L, Kühnberger K-U (2017) A thorough formalization of conceptual spaces. Joint German/Austrian conference on artificial intelligence (künstliche intelligenz) (pp 58–71)

  • Benedetti M, Lloyd E, Sack S, Fiorentini M (2019) Parameterized quantum circuits as machine learning models. Quantum Sci Technol 4(043001)

  • Bengio Y, Courville A, Vincent P (2013) Representation learning: a review and new perspectives. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell

  • Birkhoff G, von Neumann J (1936) The logic of quantum mechanics. Annal Math 37(4):823–843

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bogacz R (2017) A tutorial on the free-energy framework for modelling perception and learning. J Math Psychol 76:198–211

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bolt J, Coecke B, Genovese F, Lewis M, Marsden D, Piedeleu R (2019) Interacting conceptual spaces I: grammatical composition of concepts. Conceptual spaces: elaborations and applications, Springer (pp 151–181)

  • Bražinskas A, Havrylov S, Titov I (2018) Embedding words as distributions with a Bayesian skip-gram model. Proceedings of the 27th international conference on computational linguistics (pp 1775–1789). Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from https://aclanthology.org/C18-1151

  • Cho K, Jacobs B (2019) Disintegration and Bayesian inversion via string diagrams. Math Struc Comput Sci 29(7):938–971

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Cho K, Jacobs B, Westerbaan B, Westerbaan A (2015) An introduction to effectus theory. arXiv:1512.05813

  • Clark S, Lerchner A, von Glehn T, Tieleman O, Tanburn R, Dashevskiy M, Bosnjak M (2021) Formalising concepts as grounded abstractions (Tech. Rep.). https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.05125.pdf: DeepMind, London

  • Coecke B (2006) Introducing categories to the practicing physicist. What is Category Theory 30:45–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Coecke B, Kissinger A (2017) Picturing quantum processes: a first course in quantum theory and diagrammatic reasoning. Cambridge University Press

  • Coecke B, Sadrzadeh M, Clark S (2010) Mathematical foundations for a compositional distributional model of meaning. arXiv:1003.4394

  • Doersch C (2016) Tutorial on variational autoencoders (Tech. Rep.), UC Berkeley. arXiv:1606.05908

  • Epping GP, Busemeyer JR (2022) Using diverging predictions from classical and quantum models to dissociate between categorization systems. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fq2k5

  • Epping GP, Fisher EL, Zeleznikow-Johnston A, Pothos E, Tsuchiya N (2021) A quantum geometric framework for modeling color similarity judgements. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/vtzrq

  • Fong B (2019) An invitation to applied category theory - seven sketches in compositionality. Cambridge University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Friston K, Kiebel S (2009) Predictive coding under the free-energy principle. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological sciences 364(1521):1211–1221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganter B, Obiedkov S (2016) Conceptual exploration. Springer

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ganter B, Wille R (1999) Formal concept analysis: mathematical foundations. Springer Science & Business Media

  • Gärdenfors P (2004) Conceptual spaces: the geometry of thought. MIT press

  • Gärdenfors P (2014) The geometry of meaning. The MIT Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A (2016) Deep learning. The MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin GP, Johnson-Laird PN (2013) The acquisition of Boolean concepts. Trends Cognit Sci 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.01.007

  • Gopnik A, Meltzoff A (1997) Words, thoughts, and theories. MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Harnad S (1990) The symbol grounding problem. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomona 42:335–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havlicek V, Corcoles AD, Temme K, Harrow AW, Kandala A, Chow JM, Gambetta JM (2019) Supervised learning with quantum-enhanced feature spaces. Nature 567:209–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins I, Matthey L, Pal A, Burgess CP, Glorot X, Botvinick M, Lerchner A (2017) ß-VAE: learning basic visual concepts with a constrained variational framework. Proceedings of ICLR 2017

  • Higgins I, Sonnerat N, Matthey L, Pal A, Burgess CP, Bošnjak M, Lerchner A (2018) SCAN: learning hierarchical compositional visual concepts. Proceedings of ICLR 2018

  • Huang Q, Smolensky P, He X, Deng L, Wu D (2018) Tensor product generation networks for deep NLP modeling. Proceedings of the 2018 conference of the north American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, vol 1 (long papers) (pp 1263–1273). New Orleans, Louisiana: Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from https://aclanthology.org/N18-1114

  • Khoshaman A, Vinci W, Denis B, Andriyash E, Sadeghi H, Amin MH (2018) Quantum variational autoencoder. Quantum. Sci Technol 4(1):014001

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingma DP, Welling M (2014) Auto-encoding variational Bayes. Proceedings of the international conference on learning representations (ICLR 2014)

  • Lake BM, Ullman TD, Tenenbaum JB, Gershman SJ (2017) Building machines that learn and think like people. Behav Brain Sci 40

  • Lewis M, Lawry J (2016) Hierarchical conceptual spaces for concept combination. Artif Intell 237:204–227

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Locatello F, Bauer S, Lucic M, Rätsch G, Gelly S, Schölkopf B, Bachem O (2019) Challenging common assumptions in the unsupervised learning of disentangled representations. Proceedings of the 36th international conference on machine learning. Long Beach, California

  • Lorenz R, Pearson A, Meichanetzidis K, Kartsaklis D, Coecke B (2023) QNLP in practice: running compositional models of meaning on a quantum computer. J Artif Intell Res 76. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.14329

  • Margolis E, Laurence S (Eds.) (2015) The conceptual mind: new directions in the study of concepts. The MIT Press

  • Margolis E, Laurence S (2022) Concepts. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/concepts/. (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

  • Murphy GL (2002) The big book of concepts. The MIT Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Panangaden P (1998) Probabilistic relations. School of Computer Science Research Reports-University of Birmingham CSR 59–74

  • Pothos EM, Busemeyer JR (2013) Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? Behav Brain Sci 36(3)

  • Preskill J (2012) Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier. (Rapporteur talk at the 25th Solvay Conference on Physics - The Theory of the Quantum World). arXiv:1203.5813

  • Rezende DJ, Mohamed S, Wierstra D (2014) Stochastic backpropagation and approximate inference in deep generative models. Proceedings of the 31st international conference on machine learning (pp 1278–1286)

  • Rickard JT, Aisbett J, Gibbon G (2007) Reformulation of the theory of conceptual spaces. Inf Sci 177(21):4539–4565

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rodatz B, Shaikh RA, Yeh L (2021) Conversational negation using worldly context in compositional distributional semantics. arXiv:2105.05748

  • Rosch EH (1973) Natural categories. Cognit Psychol 4(3):328–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlangen D, Zarrieß S, Kennington C (2016) Resolving references to objects in photographs using the words-as-classifiers model. Proceedings of the 54th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (vol. 1: Long papers) (pp 1213–1223). Berlin, Germany: Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from https://aclanthology.org/P16-1115

  • Schuld M, Killoran N (2019) Quantum machine learning in feature Hilbert spaces. Phys Rev Lett 122:040504. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.040504

  • Selinger P (2010) A survey of graphical languages for monoidal categories. New structures for physics, Springer (pp 289–355)

  • Shaikh RA, Yeh L, Rodatz B, Coecke B (2021) Composing conversational negation. arXiv:2107.06820

  • Shiebler D, Gavranovic B, Wilson P (2021) Category theory in machine learning. The 4th international conference on applied category theory. Cambridge, UK

  • Smolensky P, Legendre G (2006) The harmonic mind. The MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomas V, Sylvie D (2015) Unitary transformations in the quantum model for conceptual conjunctions and its application to data representation. Front Psychol 6

  • Trueblood JS, Busemeyer JR (2011) A quantum probability account of order effects in inference. Cognit Sci 35:1518–1552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tull S (2019) Categorical operational physics. arXiv:1902.00343

  • Tull S (2021) A categorical semantics of fuzzy concepts in conceptual spaces. Proceedings of Applied Category Theory 2021

  • Van de Wetering J (2021) Constructing quantum circuits with global gates. New J Phys 23(4):043015

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Watters N, Matthey L, Borgeaud S, Kabra R, Lerchner A (2019) Spriteworld: a flexible, configurable reinforcement learning environment. https://github.com/deepmind/spriteworld/. Retrieved from https://github.com/deepmind/spriteworld/

  • Yan F, Li N, Hirota K (2021) Qhsl: a quantum hue, saturation, and lightness color model. Inf Sci 577:196–213

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

N/A

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Sean Tull developed the mathematical formalisation and wrote the theory sections. Razin A. Shaikh wrote the code, ran the experiments, and prepared some of the figures. Sara Sabrina Zemljic created the data and helped run the experiments. Stephen Clark oversaw the project, ran some of the experiments, and wrote the remainder of the manuscript. All authors took part equally in setting the general direction of the project.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Clark.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

N/A

Consent to participate

N/A

Consent for publication

Yes

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

A The shapes dataset

The parameters used in the Spriteworld software to generate the Shapes dataset:

figure r
figure s
figure t
figure u

Additional parameters for the colour domain:

figure v

A.1 The extended colour dataset

The parameters used in the Spriteworld software to generate the Shapes dataset with more (rainbow) colours:

figure w

B Neural architectures and hyper-parameters

image width

64

image height

64

image channels

3

CNN kernel size

\(4\times 4\)

CNN stride

\(2\times 2\)

CNN layers

4

CNN filters

64

CNN dense layers

2

CNN dense layer size

256

dimensions of latent space

6

initialization interval

\([-1.0, 1.0]\)

for means of priors

 

initialization interval

\([-7.0, 0.0]\)

for log-variances of priors

 

batch size

32

Adam learning rate

\(10^{-3}\)

Adam \(\beta _1\)

0.9

Adam \(\beta _2\)

0.999

Adam \(\epsilon \)

\(10^{-7}\)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tull, S., Shaikh, R.A., Zemljič, S.S. et al. From conceptual spaces to quantum concepts: formalising and learning structured conceptual models. Quantum Mach. Intell. 6, 21 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42484-023-00134-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42484-023-00134-z

Keywords

Navigation