Towards a Computational Model of Artificial Intuition and Decision Making

  • Olayinka Johnny
  • Marcello TrovatiEmail author
  • Jeffrey Ray
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1035)


The ability to perform a detailed decision-making approach based on large quantities of parameters and data is at the core of the majority of sciences. Traditionally, all possible scenarios should be considered, and their outcomes assessed via a logical and systematic manner to obtain accurate and applicable methods for knowledge discovery. However, such approach is typically associated with high computational complexity. Moreover, it is non-trivial for researchers to develop and train models with deep and complex model structures with potentially large number of parameters. However, there are compelling evidence from psychology and cognitive research that intuition plays an important role in the process of intelligence extraction and the decision-making process. More specifically, by using intuitive models, a system is able to take subsets from networks and pass them through a process to determine relationship that can be used to predict future decision without a deep understanding of a scenario and its corresponding parameters. When an artificial agent manifests human intuition properties, then we can describe this as artificial intuition. In this article, we discuss some requirements of artificial intuition and present a model of artificial intuition that utilises semantic networks to improve a decision system.


  1. 1.
    Dundas, J., Chik, D.: Ibsead: - a self-evolving self-obsessed learning algorithm for machine learning. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Emerg. Technol. 1(4), 74 (2011). (E-ISSN 2044-6004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trovati, M.: Reduced topologically real-world networks. Int. J. Distrib. Syst. Technol. 6, 13–27 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Payne, L.K.: Intuitive decision making as the culmination of continuing education: a theoretical framework. J. Contin. Educ. Nurs. 46, 326–332 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Graber, M.L., Kissam, S., Payne, V.L., Meyer, A.N.D., Sorensen, A., Lenfestey, N., Tant, E., Henriksen, K., LaBresh, K., Singh, H.: Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: a narrative review. BMJ Qual. Saf. 21, 535–557 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hams, S.P.: A gut feeling? Intuition and critical care nursing. Intensive Crit. Care Nurs. 16, 310–318 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diaz-Hernandez, O., Gonzalez-Villela, V.J.: Analysis of human intuition towards artificial intuition synthesis for robotics. Mechatron. Appl. Int. J. (MECHATROJ) 1, 23 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simon, H.A.: Making management decisions: the role of intuition and emotion. Acad. Manag. Exec. (1987-1989) 1(1), 57–64 (1987)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kahneman, D., Frederick, S.: Representativeness revisited: attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., Kahneman, D. (eds.) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, pp. 103–119. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F.: Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? Behav. Brain Sci. 23, 645–665 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kahneman, D.: Maps of bounded rationality : a perspective on intuitive judgment and choice (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    He, J., He, P.: Fuzzy relationship mapping and intuition inversion: a computer intuition inference model. In: IEEE 2008 International Conference on MultiMedia and Information Technology, December 2008Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tao, W., He, P.: Intuitive learning and artificial intuition networks. In: IEEE 2009 Second International Conference on Education Technology and Training, December 2009Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frantz, R.: Herbert simon. Artificial intelligence as a framework for understanding intuition. J. Econ. Psychol. 24(2), 265–277 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Srdanov, A., Kovacevic, N.R., Vasic, S., Milovanovic, D.: Emulation of artificial intuition using random choice and logic. In: IEEE 2016 13th Symposium on Neural Networks and Applications (NEUREL), November 2016Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Srdanov, A., Milovanović, D., Vasić, S., Ratković Kovačević, N.: The application of simulated intuition in minimizing the number of moves in guessing the series of imagined objects, February 2017Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boden, M.A.: The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Routledge, Abingdon (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang, Z.-X., Zhong, W.: Barriers to organizational creativity in Chinese companies, pp. 339–367, April 2016Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bottom, W., Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., Kahneman, D.: Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Acad. Manag. Rev. 29, 695 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koestler, A.: The Act of Creation. Arkana, London (1989). OCLC: 22220796Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blancke, S., De Smedt, J.: Evolved to be irrational? Evolutionary and cognitive foundations of pseudosciences, pp. 361–379, January 2013Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pease, A., Corneli, J.: Chapter 10 Evaluation of Creativity, pp. 277–294. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kelly, J., Papalambros, P.Y., Seifert, C.M.: Interactive genetic algorithms for use as creativity enhancement tools. In: AAAI Spring Symposium: Creative Intelligent Systems (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bechara, A.: Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cereb. Cortex 10, 295–307 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schilling, M.A.: A “small-world” network model of cognitive insight. Creat. Res. J. 17(2–3), 131–154 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Collins, A.M., Loftus, E.: A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychol. Rev. 82, 407–428 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brasethvik, T., Gulla, J.A.: A conceptual modeling approach to semantic document retrieval. In: Pidduck, A.B., Ozsu, M.T., Mylopoulos, J., Woo, C.C. (eds.) Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pp. 167–182, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shastri, L.: A connectionist approach to knowledge representation and limited inference. Cognit. Sci. 12(3), 331–392 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olayinka Johnny
    • 1
  • Marcello Trovati
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jeffrey Ray
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceEdge Hill UniversityOrmskirkUK

Personalised recommendations