This paper demonstrates that some non-classical models of human decision-making can be run successfully as circuits on quantum computers. Since the 1960s, many observed cognitive behaviors have been shown to violate rules based on classical probability and set theory. For example, the order in which questions are posed in a survey affects whether participants answer 'yes' or 'no', so the population that answers 'yes' to both questions cannot be modeled as the intersection of two fixed sets. It can, however, be modeled as a sequence of projections carried out in different orders. This and other examples have been described successfully using quantum probability, which relies on comparing angles between subspaces rather than volumes between subsets. Now in the early 2020s, quantum computers have reached the point where some of these quantum cognitive models can be implemented and investigated on quantum hardware, by representing the mental states in qubit registers, and the cognitive operations and decisions using different gates and measurements. This paper develops such quantum circuit representations for quantum cognitive models, focusing particularly on modeling order effects and decision-making under uncertainty. The claim is not that the human brain uses qubits and quantum circuits explicitly (just like the use of Boolean set theory does not require the brain to be using classical bits), but that the mathematics shared between quantum cognition and quantum computing motivates the exploration of quantum computers for cognition modeling. Key quantum properties include superposition, entanglement, and collapse, as these mathematical elements provide a common language between cognitive models, quantum hardware, and circuit implementations.
This paper demonstrates that some non-classical models of human decision-making can be run successfully as circuits on quantum computers. Since the 1960s, many observed cognitive behaviors have been shown to violate rules based on classical probability and set theory. For example, the order in which questions are posed in a survey affects whether participants answer 'yes' or 'no', so the population that answers 'yes' to both questions cannot be modeled as the intersection of two fixed sets. It can, however, be modeled as a sequence of projections carried out in different orders. This and other examples have been described successfully using quantum probability, which relies on comparing angles between subspaces rather than volumes between subsets. Now in the early 2020s, quantum computers have reached the point where some of these quantum cognitive models can be implemented and investigated on quantum hardware, by representing the mental states in qubit registers, and the cognitive operations and decisions using different gates and measurements. This paper develops such quantum circuit representations for quantum cognitive models, focusing particularly on modeling order effects and decision-making under uncertainty. The claim is not that the human brain uses qubits and quantum circuits explicitly (just like the use of Boolean set theory does not require the brain to be using classical bits), but that the mathematics shared between quantum cognition and quantum computing motivates the exploration of quantum computers for cognition modeling. Key quantum properties include superposition, entanglement, and collapse, as these mathematical elements provide a common language between cognitive models, quantum hardware, and circuit implementations.
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.
ABSTRACT Recent advances at the intersection of quantum physics, neuroscience, and cognitive science have renewed interest in whether quantum phenomena and quantum‐inspired formalisms can inform models of human cognition and decision‐making. While classical neural and computational models explain many aspects of perception and behavior, they face limitations in accounting for contextuality, order effects, probabilistic reasoning violations, ambiguity resolution, and rapid information integration. This review synthesizes evidence and theoretical frameworks linking quantum‐related principles to cognition, with emphasis on quantum sensing in biological systems, molecular and subcellular quantum‐relevant mechanisms, quantum‐to‐classical transition pathways, quantum‐inspired models of perception and decision‐making, and quantum‐inspired computational approaches. It also extends beyond the probabilistic arm of quantum cognition by considering emerging equilibrium‐based and causal‐logical theories, including mental equilibrium, brain‐universe similarity, mind‐light‐matter unity, quantum emergence, and quantum intelligence. Throughout, the review distinguishes physically instantiated quantum mechanisms from abstract quantum‐like formalisms that model contextuality, mental entanglement, and non‐separable cognitive dynamics without requiring sustained macroscopic quantum coherence in the brain. Finally, it identifies methodological challenges and future directions for advancing quantum cognitive science toward experimentally testable and biologically meaningful theories.
Artificial intelligence has long sought to mirror human intelligence through computational models of perception, learning, and reasoning. In parallel, cognitive science has shown that human judgment frequently deviates from classical logic and probability theory. This research-in-progress investigates how quantum-probabilistic models can be implemented as quantum circuits and examines the stability of such circuits, using the conjunction fallacy as a test case. Responses are compared across human behavioural data, Monte Carlo simulations, quantum simulations, and physical quantum hardware, explicitly testing how interference-driven reasoning patterns persist under controlled stochastic and decoherence-induced noise. This comparison provides insight into how cognitive probability structures are preserved—or distorted—across classical and quantum computational implementations. The paper demonstrates a proof-of-concept pipeline for encoding cognitively motivated probability structures in computational models and evaluating their behaviour under simulation and hardware noise, with implications for future decision support system design.
Abstract The gap between natural and artificial intelligence is often discussed in terms of creativity, contextual adaptability, and non-algorithmic decision-making capacities where human cognition appears fundamentally different from current AI systems. This paper argues that developing quantum and quantum-like models of cognition, decision-making, and AI provides a promising pathway for narrowing, and perhaps essentially bridging, this gap. Empirical studies of human cognition and decision-making reveal systematic deviations from classical probability, logic, and information theory—manifesting as contextuality, order effects, interference (such as conjunction and disjunction effects), task incompatibility, and apparent randomness. These phenomena are well captured by quantum probability theory and related quantum-like frameworks, which provide a rigorous mathematical formalism—Hilbert spaces, superposition, entanglement, and decoherence—for modeling cognitive states and their evolution. Such models go beyond metaphor, showing that aspects of human reasoning can be more faithfully represented using quantum-like rather than classical probabilistic structures. Although genuine quantum (based on quantum physics) and quantum-like approaches share the same mathematical foundation, they differ experimentally. Both stimulate the development of novel AI architectures: quantum AI (QAI) and quantum-like AI (QLAI). While QAI depends on advances in quantum computing, QLAI can be realized on classical digital or analog hardware. The advancement of both offers a promising route to reducing—and potentially bridging—the divide between natural and artificial intelligence. This paper sets out a conceptual program to unify natural and artificial intelligence via quantum/quantum-like models of consciousness/cognition and AI.
The increasing complexity of modern decision-making environments has challenged the effectiveness of classical mathematical models. Traditional probabilistic frameworks often struggle to represent uncertainty, ambiguity, contextual dependence, and nonlinear interactions among decision variables. Quantum-inspired mathematical models have emerged as a promising interdisciplinary approach that leverages mathematical principles derived from quantum theory without requiring quantum computing hardware. These models utilize concepts such as superposition, interference, entanglement, and contextuality to represent complex decision processes more accurately. This paper explores the theoretical foundations, mathematical structures, and applications of quantum-inspired decision models in complex systems. The study examines how quantum probability theory provides a more flexible representation of human cognition, organizational decision-making, financial forecasting, and artificial intelligence systems. Furthermore, the paper discusses mathematical formulations, implementation strategies, advantages, challenges, and future research directions. The findings suggest that quantum-inspired models offer significant potential for addressing uncertainty and dynamic interactions in complex decision environments, thereby contributing to the advancement of intelligent decision support systems.
This note is devoted to the problem of signaling (marginal inconsistency) in the Bell-type experiments with physical and cognitive systems. It seems that in quantum physics, this problem is still not taken seriously. Only recently have experimenters started to check the signaling hypothesis for their data. For cognitive systems, signaling was statistically significant in all experiments (typically for decision making) performed up to today. Here, one cannot simply ignore this problem. Since signaling contradicts the quantum theory of measurement for compatible observables, its statistical significance in experiments with humans can be considered as an objection for quantum-like modeling—applications of quantum theory to cognition, decision making, psychology, economics and finance, social and political science. In this paper, we point to two possible sources of signaling generation that are consistent with quantum measurement theory. Thus, the signaling objection for quantum-like modeling is not catastrophic. One of these sources is the direct physical signaling about selection of experimental settings, questions or tasks in quantum-like studies. Another possible source is a state modification dependent on experimental settings. The latter was a rather common source of signaling in quantum physics. Since the physical size of the brain is very small comparing with the light velocity, it seems to be impossible to prevent the direct physical signaling (with electromagnetic waves) between the brain’s areas processing two questions a and b. However, if, for these questions, not the electromagnetic waves, but electrochemical communication plays the crucial role, the experimenter may hope to make signaling weaker by answering the questions faster. The problem of question-dependent mental state modification seems to be solvable via smarter experimental design. This paper can be useful both for physicists interested in quantum foundations and for researchers working in quantum-like studies, e.g., applying the quantum theory to model decision making or psychological effects. This paper is solely about quantum theory. Thus, we do not consider general contextual probabilistic models.