We present a new experiment demonstrating destructive interference in customers' estimates of conditional probabilities of product failure. We take the perspective of a manufacturer of consumer products and consider two situations of cause and effect. Whereas, individually, the effect of the causes is similar, it is observed that when combined, the two causes produce the opposite effect. Such negative interference of two or more product features may be exploited for better modeling of the cognitive processes taking place in customers' minds. Doing so can enhance the likelihood that a manufacturer will be able to design a better product, or a feature within it. Quantum probability has been used to explain some commonly observed "non-classical" effects, such as the disjunction effect, question order effect, violation of the sure-thing principle, and the Machina and Ellsberg paradoxes. In this work, we present results from a survey on the impact of multiple observed symptoms on the drivability of a vehicle. The symptoms are assumed to be conditionally independent. We demonstrate that the response statistics cannot be directly explained using classical probability, but quantum formulation easily models it, as it allows for both positive and negative "interference" between events. Since quantum formalism also accounts for classical probability's predictions, it serves as a richer paradigm for modeling decision making behavior in engineering design and behavioral economics.
We present a new experiment demonstrating destructive interference in customers' estimates of conditional probabilities of product failure. We take the perspective of a manufacturer of consumer products and consider two situations of cause and effect. Whereas, individually, the effect of the causes is similar, it is observed that when combined, the two causes produce the opposite effect. Such negative interference of two or more product features may be exploited for better modeling of the cognitive processes taking place in customers' minds. Doing so can enhance the likelihood that a manufacturer will be able to design a better product, or a feature within it. Quantum probability has been used to explain some commonly observed "non-classical" effects, such as the disjunction effect, question order effect, violation of the sure-thing principle, and the Machina and Ellsberg paradoxes. In this work, we present results from a survey on the impact of multiple observed symptoms on the drivability of a vehicle. The symptoms are assumed to be conditionally independent. We demonstrate that the response statistics cannot be directly explained using classical probability, but quantum formulation easily models it, as it allows for both positive and negative "interference" between events. Since quantum formalism also accounts for classical probability's predictions, it serves as a richer paradigm for modeling decision making behavior in engineering design and behavioral economics.
Engineering practice routinely involves decision making under uncertainty. Much of this decision making entails reconciling multiple pieces of information to form a suitable model of uncertainty. As more information is collected, one expectedly makes better and better decisions. However, conditional probability assessments made by human decision makers, as new information arrives does not always follow expected trends and instead exhibits inconsistencies. Understanding them is necessary for a better modeling of the cognitive processes taking place in their mind, whether it be the designer or the end-user. Doing so can result in better products and product features. Quantum probability has been used in the literature to explain many commonly observed deviations from the classical probability such as: question order effect, response replicability effect, Machina and Ellsberg paradoxes and the effect of positive and negative interference between events. In this work, we present results from a survey demonstrating responses that while difficult to explain using classical probability, can be explained using a quantum formulation - highlighting its potential in engineering applications. Since quantum formulism is more general and can also match the predictions of classical probability, it serves as a richer paradigm for modeling decision making behavior in engineering practice.
How can we use quantum theory to model other phenomena of interest to researchers in cognition and decision making? Quantum theory is not easy for researchers in cognition and decision making to accept. In fact, quantum mechanics was not easy for physicists to accept either, but it was forced on them by several paradoxical findings that could not be explained using classical physics. We have a similar problem in cognition and decision making – there are numerous paradoxical findings that just seem irrational according to classic probability theory. For example, under some conditions, people judge the probability of event A and B to be greater than the probability of event B , which is called the conjunction fallacy (Tversky & Kahneman, 1983). Also, under the same conditions, they judge the probability of A or B to be less than the probability of event A (Carlson & Yates, 1989), which is called the disjunction fallacy. In this chapter we examine how quantum probability theory explains these and other puzzling results from human probability judgment research. This chapter has two main parts. In the first part, we use a quantum model to derive qualitative predictions for conjunction errors, disjunction errors, and other closely related findings. The first section provides a general set of predictions that do not depend on specific assumptions about the features used to represent events, and the predictions are parameter free. In the second part, we examine the quantitative predictions of the quantum model for a Bayesian inference task, which we use to explain order effects on inference.
Recent work in cognitive psychology has revealed that quantum probability theory provides another method of computing probabilities without falling into the restrictions that classical probability has in regard to modeling cognitive systems and decision-making. This enables the explanation of paradoxical scenarios that are difficult, or even impossible, to explain through classical probability theory. In this work, we perform an overview of the most important quantum models in the literature that are used to make predictions under scenarios where the Sure Thing Principle is being violated (the Quantum-Like Approach, the Quantum Dynamical Model, the Quantum Prospect Theory and Quantum-Like Bayesian Networks). We evaluated these models in terms of three metrics: interference effects, parameter tuning and scalability. The first examines if the analyzed model makes use of any type of quantum interference to explain human decision-making. The second is concerned with the assignment of values to a large number of quantum parameters. The last one consists of analyzing the ability of the models to be extended and generalized to more complex scenarios. We also studied the growth of the quantum parameters when the complexity and the levels of uncertainty of the decision scenario increase. Finally, we compared these quantum models with traditional classical models from the literature. We conclude with a discussion of the manner in which the models addressed in this paper can only deal with very small decision problems and why they do not scale well to larger, more complex decision scenarios.
Categorization is a significant task in decision-making, which is a key part of human behavior. An interference effect is caused by categorization in some cases, which breaks the total probability principle. A negation quantum model (NQ model) is developed in this article to predict the interference. Taking the advantage of negation to bring more information in the distribution from a different perspective, the proposed model is a combination of the negation of a probability distribution and the quantum decision model. Information of the phase contained in quantum probability and the special calculation method to it can easily represented the interference effect. The results of the proposed NQ model is closely to the real experiment data and has less error than the existed models.
Classical models of decision-making under uncertainty, grounded in expected utility theory and Bayesian probability, often fail to account for systematic cognitive anomalies such as preference reversals, order effects, ambiguity aversion, and context-dependent choices. Quantum cognition models offer a novel theoretical framework that applies the mathematical principles of quantum probability—such as superposition, interference, and non-commutativity—to cognitive processes without assuming physical quantum mechanisms in the brain. By representing cognitive states as probabilistic superpositions that collapse through decision “measurements,” these models provide parsimonious explanations for violations of classical rationality. This paper examines how quantum cognition frameworks capture contextual influence, belief updating, and interference effects in uncertain decision environments. Drawing on findings from cognitive psychology and behavioral economics, the study highlights the relevance of quantum cognition for applications in economic choice modeling, legal decision analysis, and artificial intelligence. The analysis suggests that quantum probability offers a robust alternative to classical approaches when modeling human decision-making in complex, ambiguous, and context-sensitive situations.
The finding is this: human decisions under uncertainty and social conflict can be modeled not with classical Bayesian probabilities, but with quantum probability amplitudes, where interference terms capture the effect of social interaction on choice. That's the one clean sentence. For context, this sits in quantum cognition, a field that has spent two decades showing that people violate the sure-thing principle and other classical axioms in predictable ways. The standard response has been to patch classical models with extra parameters. This work takes a different route, borrowing the Hilbert-space machinery from physics and applying it to cognitive states. Here's the mechanism you can evaluate. Instead of assigning a probability to an event, you assign a complex amplitude. The probability is the squared magnitude of that amplitude after projection onto a subspace. When you have two possible answers, A or B, the classical sum of their separate probabilities is not what you observe. Y Author: Andrew Stewart Caldin, Independent Researcher, UK. Part of the E8 Intelligence Research series. Platform: e8intelligence.com