Metacognition, understood as the monitoring and regulation of one's own cognitive processes, is inherently sequential: an agent evaluates an internal state, updates it, and may then re-evaluate under modified criteria. Order effects in cognition are well documented, yet it remains unclear whether such effects reflect classical state changes or reveal a deeper structural non-commutativity. We develop an operational framework that makes this distinction explicit. In our formulation, metacognitive evaluations are modeled as state-transforming operations acting on an internal state space with probabilistic readouts, thereby separating evaluation back-action from observable output. We show that order dependence prevents any faithful Boolean-commutative representation. We then address a stronger question: can observed order effects always be explained by enlarging the state space with classical latent variables? To formalize this issue, we introduce two assumptions, counterfactual definiteness and evaluation non-invasiveness, under which the existence of a joint distribution over all sequential readouts implies a family of testable constraints on pairwise sequential correlations. Violation of these constraints rules out any classical non-invasive account and certifies what we call genuine non-commutativity. We provide an explicit three-dimensional rotation model with fully worked numerical examples that exhibits such violations. We also outline a behavioral paradigm involving sequential confidence, error-likelihood, and feeling-of-knowing judgments following a perceptual decision, together with the corresponding empirical test. No claim is made regarding quantum physical substrates; the framework is purely operational and algebraic.
Metacognition, understood as the monitoring and regulation of one's own cognitive processes, is inherently sequential: an agent evaluates an internal state, updates it, and may then re-evaluate under modified criteria. Order effects in cognition are well documented, yet it remains unclear whether such effects reflect classical state changes or reveal a deeper structural non-commutativity. We develop an operational framework that makes this distinction explicit. In our formulation, metacognitive evaluations are modeled as state-transforming operations acting on an internal state space with probabilistic readouts, thereby separating evaluation back-action from observable output. We show that order dependence prevents any faithful Boolean-commutative representation. We then address a stronger question: can observed order effects always be explained by enlarging the state space with classical latent variables? To formalize this issue, we introduce two assumptions, counterfactual definiteness and evaluation non-invasiveness, under which the existence of a joint distribution over all sequential readouts implies a family of testable constraints on pairwise sequential correlations. Violation of these constraints rules out any classical non-invasive account and certifies what we call genuine non-commutativity. We provide an explicit three-dimensional rotation model with fully worked numerical examples that exhibits such violations. We also outline a behavioral paradigm involving sequential confidence, error-likelihood, and feeling-of-knowing judgments following a perceptual decision, together with the corresponding empirical test. No claim is made regarding quantum physical substrates; the framework is purely operational and algebraic.
Cognitive neuroscience has accumulated robust findings (e.g., order effects in judgment, multi-path motor preparation, perceptual binding, attentional selection, and the recursive construction of self and time) that systematically resist explanation within classical probabilistic and causal frameworks. We argue that these are not anomalies but signatures of a deeper, non-commutative architecture of cognition and brain dynamics. We propose quantum probability theory together with contextual probability theory, not as metaphorical analogies but as rigorous translational languages for cognitive processes in which observation actively transforms underlying state spaces. Underlying this framework is the conjecture that neural network dynamics in the brain are intrinsically organized to generate quantum-like representations-rather than merely being described by quantum mathematics from the outside. Their structural primitives (i.e., superposition, entanglement, projection, and non-commutativity) map onto premotor population coding, long-range cortical synchrony, prefrontal state dynamics, and default-mode network activity. On this basis we sketch a new sub-domain (namely, Cognitive Structural Science) that treats the geometry and algebra of cognitive state spaces as primary explananda, and outline a research program combining homologous human-macaque experiments with quantum-computer simulation as a constrained testbed.
We characterize the class of quantum measurements that matches the applications of quantum theory to cognition (and decision-making)—quantum-like modelling. Projective measurements describe the canonical measurements of the basic observables of quantum physics. However, the combinations of the basic cognitive effects, such as the question order and response replicability effects (RREs), cannot be described by projective measurements. We motivate the use of the special class of quantum measurements, namely, sharp repeatable non-projective measurements — S R P ¯ . This class is practically unused in quantum physics. Thus, physics and cognition explore different parts of quantum measurement theory. Quantum-like modelling is not the automatic borrowing of the quantum formalism. Exploring the class S R P ¯ highlights the role of non-commutativity of the state-update maps generated by measurement back action . Thus, ‘non-classicality’ in quantum physics as well as quantum-like modelling for cognition is based on two different types of non-commutativity, of operators (observables) and instruments (state-update maps): observable non-commutativity versus state-update-non-commutativity . We speculate that distinguishing quantum-like properties of the cognitive effects is the expression of the latter, or possibly both. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Quantum theory and topology in models of decision making (Part 1)’.
Abstract Classical probability theory provides the standard foundation for rational inference, yet human probability judgments are known to systematically violate Kolmogorovian axioms through phenomena such as conjunction fallacies and question-order effects. Whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit structurally analogous departures from classical probability remains an important empirical question with broad implications for AI evaluation and cognitive science. Here, we report a controlled experimental investigation of the probabilistic structure of LLM responses under systematically varied contextual prompts, treating model outputs as behavioral observables of a high-dimensional inference system. Using paradigms drawn from cognitive decision research, we evaluated multiple LLMs across tasks, including ambiguity judgments, belief revision, order effects, conjunction fallacies, and base-rate reasoning. Our experiments reveal systematic violations of the law of total probability accompanied by pronounced order-dependent effects across all models. Critically, these deviations are not random: they exhibit a structured interference form characterized by a phase-dependent term and a non-trivial upper bound, and the observed scaling relation demonstrates that the resulting probability assignments cannot be embedded within any single Kolmogorov probability space. These findings are consistent with a constrained non-commutative probabilistic structure, formally analogous to quantum probability models previously proposed for human cognition, without implying that neural networks implement quantum-physical processes. Our results establish non-commutative probability as a principled descriptive framework for contextual inference in large-scale artificial systems, and highlight the need for structural, beyond accuracy-based evaluation of probabilistic reasoning in modern AI.
Literary interpretation changes as readers encounter new passages, answer interpretive questions, and revisit earlier material in light of later context. Quantum cognition provides a probability calculus for judgments whose probabilities depend on context and probe order, but the use of Hilbert-space notation alone does not establish nonclassical behavior. This article develops Quantum Semantic Dynamics (QSD) as a constrained quantum-probabilistic model and distinguishes three claim levels: quantum-inspired representation, quantum-probabilistic structure, and intrinsic nonclassicality. The present paper advances only the second. The confirmatory implementation restricts the local semantic state to a two-dimensional space, fixes probe geometry in an independent pilot sample, reconstructs a population-level 2 × 2 density state from three linearly independent binary probe bases, and gives the off-diagonal state components an operational meaning through cross-basis judgments. Contextual evolution is restricted to a one-parameter completely positive trace-preserving contraction toward a preregistered context-target state rather than an arbitrary latent transition. Two probes form the randomized A → B/B → A sequence used for the quantum question-order (QQ) diagnostic; the third is measured in an independent arm for state identification. The paper derives the QQ equality, states its assumptions, and adds an uncertainty-style consistency constraint for the frozen noncommuting probe geometry. QSD is compared with explicitly defined classical comparator classes ranging from a static commutative model to matched sequential latent-state models. Compatibility with QQ or the Hilbert representation is not treated as proof of intrinsic nonclassicality; such a claim would require a separate contextuality analysis against an explicitly defined classical representability criterion. The resulting architecture makes the mathematical status, empirical burden, and rejection conditions of QSD explicit before data collection.
Human reasoning is traditionally modeled through rational-order frameworks that assume stability, separability, and coherence. Yet across judgment, valuation, perception, and social decision-making, empirical work consistently reveals patterned violations of these assumptions. These deviations intensify in real-world contexts shaped by institutional constraints, identity commitments, and collective narratives, where reasoning must navigate incompatible interpretive frames and interdependent evaluative pressures. Existing theories typically treat such phenomena as noise, bias, or bounded rationality, leaving no formal account of how rational-order rules interact with the variability inherent in social domains. This article proposes a structural framework that explains why these two regimes diverge and how their interaction produces systematic mismatches. Building on quantum probability theory, not as a physical metaphor but as a representational tool, it formalizes evaluative states that remain indeterminate until elicited, transform under contextual modulation, and become relationally coupled across agents and domains. Whereas, existing quantum-cognition models primarily address task-level effects such as conjunction errors or order dependence, this framework scales quantum principles to socially and institutionally embedded reasoning. The account identifies contradiction, interference, entanglement, and resolution as recurrent properties of real-world cognition and shows how quantum formalisms provide a coherent vocabulary for capturing these phenomena. To support cumulative progress, the article outlines a research agenda with empirically testable designs for distinguishing incompatible bases, assessing inseparability, modeling context-driven transformations, and integrating multi-level reasoning environments. This program positions quantum and classical approaches within a unified architecture and advances a broader science of reasoning.
Whether neural information processing is entirely classical or involves quantum-mechanical elements remains an open question. Here we propose a model-agnostic, information-theoretic test of nonclassicality that bypasses microscopic assumptions and instead probes the structure of neural representations themselves. Using autoencoders as a transparent model system, we introduce a Bell-type consistency test in latent space, and ask whether decoding statistics obtained under multiple readout contexts can be jointly explained by a single positive latent-variable distribution. By shifting the search for quantum-like signatures in neural systems from microscopic dynamics to experimentally testable constraints on information processing, this work opens a new route for probing the fundamental physics of neural computation. The proposed test identifies violations of classical latent-variable consistency at the level of statistical representations, without assuming a specific underlying physical mechanism.