This note is a friendly technical check of arXiv:2511.21731v1. I highlight a few places where the manuscript's interpretation of (i) the reported CHSH/Bell-type calculations and (ii) Bose--Einstein (BE) fits to rank-frequency data seems to go beyond what the stated procedures can firmly support. I also point out one internal inconsistency in the "energy-level spacing" analogy. The aim is constructive: to keep the interesting empirical observations, while making clear what they do (and do not) imply about quantum entanglement in the usual Hilbert-space sense, especially when "energy" is defined by rank.
This note is a friendly technical check of arXiv:2511.21731v1. I highlight a few places where the manuscript's interpretation of (i) the reported CHSH/Bell-type calculations and (ii) Bose--Einstein (BE) fits to rank-frequency data seems to go beyond what the stated procedures can firmly support. I also point out one internal inconsistency in the "energy-level spacing" analogy. The aim is constructive: to keep the interesting empirical observations, while making clear what they do (and do not) imply about quantum entanglement in the usual Hilbert-space sense, especially when "energy" is defined by rank.
We reply to the comments by M. Sienicki and K. Sienicki (arXiv:2512.07881) and by K. Sienicki (arXiv:2601.06104) on our work on quantum-mechanical statistics in human language (arXiv:2407.14924) and on quantum structure in AI-generated language (arXiv:2511.21731). We thank the authors for their careful reading and address what we consider to be the main points of criticism: the exploratory nature of the protocol used in the experiments with large language models; the role of marginal-law violations, and of the Contextuality-by-Default criterion, in the identification of entanglement; the limited diagnostic value of a Bose-Einstein fit taken in isolation; the meaning of assigning the lowest energy levels to the most frequent words; and the relation between the vector spaces used by LLMs and quantum state spaces. We also correct a typographical error in Table 3 of arXiv:2511.21731, which does not affect the reported CHSH value.
We present the results of cognitive tests on conceptual combinations, performed using specific Large Language Models (LLMs) as test subjects. In the first test, performed with ChatGPT (GPT-5.5 Thinking) and Google Gemini Advanced (Gemini 1.5 Pro), we show that Bell's inequalities are significantly violated, which indicates the presence of a 'non-classical probability model' with probabilities that do not satisfy Kolmogorov's axioms. In the second test, also performed using ChatGPT and Gemini, we identify the presence of 'Bose-Einstein statistics', rather than the intuitively expected 'Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics', in the distribution of the words contained in large-size texts. Interestingly, these findings mirror the results previously obtained in both cognitive tests with human participants and information retrieval tests on large corpora. Taken together, they point to the 'systematic emergence of non-classical quantum-like structures in conceptual-linguistic domains', regardless of whether the cognitive agent is human or artificial. Although LLMs are classified as neural networks for historical reasons, we believe that a more essential form of knowledge organization takes place in the distributive semantic structure of vector spaces built on top of the neural network. It is this meaning-bearing structure that lends itself to a phenomenon of evolutionary convergence between human cognition and language, slowly established through biological evolution, and LLM cognition and language, emerging much more rapidly as a result of self-learning and training. We analyze various aspects and examples that contain evidence supporting the above hypothesis. We also advance a unifying framework that explains the pervasive quantum organization of meaning that we identify.
This analysis critically examines the application of quantum mechanical concepts—such as entanglement, indistinguishability, and Bose Einstein statistics — to language and cognitive processes as proposed in the paper. While the interdisciplinary approach is creative, significant theoretical and empirical challenges arise when translating quantum principles to human cognition. Key issues include the contextual and qualitative nature of cognitive processes, which differ fundamentally from the predictable, probabilistic behaviors observed in quantum systems. Cognitive phenomena are shaped by factors like emotional state, social context, and personal memory, which have no direct analogy in quantum mechanics. The assumption that words or cognitive "particles" are indistinguishable, as quantum particles are, overlooks the unique and dynamic contextual dependencies in language. Moreover, empirical support for such quantum-cognitive parallels remains limited, and the paper’s application of quantum statistics to word frequency distributions may reflect a coincidental pattern rather than a fundamental process. This assessment suggests that while the paper’s quantum analogies could foster new interdisciplinary discussions, they risk speculative overreach if treated as foundational principles for understanding cognition. Effective interdisciplinary integration would require rigorous empirical validation within cognitive science, as well as caution against reductionist interpretations that might simplify the rich complexities of human thought. Future research may benefit from more context-sensitive and evidence-based models that align more closely with established cognitive theories, thereby maintaining the intellectual richness of both quantum mechanics and cognitive science without forcing an untested theoretical bridge between them.
Our article described an experiment that adjudicates between different causal accounts of Bell inequality violations by a comparison of their predictive power, finding that certain types of models that are structurally radical but parametrically conservative, of which a class of superdeterministic models are an example, overfit the data relative to models that are structurally conservative but parametrically radical in the sense of endorsing an intrinsically quantum generalization of the framework of causal modelling. In their comment (arXiv:2206.10619), Hance and Hossenfelder argue that we have misrepresented the purpose of superdeterministic models. We here dispute this claim by recalling the different classes of superdeterministic models we defined in our article and our conclusions regarding which of these are disfavoured by our experimental results. Their confusion on this point seems to have arisen in part from the fact that we characterized superdeterministic models within a causal modelling framework and from the fact that we referred to this framework as "classical" in order to contrast it with an intrinsically quantum alternative. In this reply, therefore, we take the opportunity to clarify these points. They also claim that if one is adjudicating between a pair of models, where one model can account for strictly more operational statistics than the other, the first model will tend to overfit the data relative to the second. Because this model inclusion relation can arise for pairs of models in a reductionist heirarchy, they conclude that overfitting should not be taken as evidence against the first model. We point out here that, contrary to this claim, one does not expect overfitting to arise generically in cases of model inclusion, so that it is indeed sometimes appropriate to consider overfitting as a criterion for adjudicating between such models.
This short note comments on \citet{Aerts2024Origin}, which proposes that ranked word frequencies in texts should be read through the lens of Bose--Einstein (BE) statistics and even used to illuminate the origin of quantum statistics in physics. The core message here is modest: the paper offers an interesting analogy and an eye-catching fit, but several key steps mix physical claims with definitions and curve-fitting choices. We highlight three such points: (i) a normalization issue that is presented as "bosonic enhancement", (ii) an identification of rank with energy that makes the BE fit only weakly diagnostic of an underlying mechanism, and (iii) a baseline comparison that is too weak to support an ontological conclusion. We also briefly flag a few additional concerns (interpretation drift, parameter semantics, and reproducibility).
This note is a friendly technical check of Jeffrey Bub's There is No Quantum World (arXiv:2512.18400v2). I flag one unambiguous mathematical slip (a cardinality identity that implicitly assumes the Continuum Hypothesis) and then point out a few places where the discussion of infinite tensor products, ``sectorization,'' and measurement updates would benefit from sharper wording. Nothing here is meant as a critique of Bub's interpretive goals; the aim is simply to separate what is mathematically forced from what depends on choices of algebra, representation, or philosophical stance. I end with a short remark on Philippe Grangier's reply (arXiv:2512.22965v1).