The application of principles of Quantum Mechanics in areas outside of physics has been getting increasing attention in the scientific community in an emergent disciplined called Quantum Cognition. These principles have been applied to explain paradoxical situations that cannot be easily explained through classical theory. In quantum probability, events are characterised by a superposition state, which is represented by a state vector in a N-dimensional vector space. The probability of an event is given by the squared magnitude of the projection of this superposition state into the desired subspace. This geometric approach is very useful to explain paradoxical findings that involve order effects, but do we really need quantum principles for models that only involve projections? This work has two main goals. First, it is still not clear in the literature if a quantum projection model has any advantage towards a classical projection. We compared both models and concluded that the Quantum Projection model achieves the same results as its classical counterpart, because the quantum interference effects play no role in the computation of the probabilities. Second, it intends to propose an alternative relativistic interpretation for rotation parameters that are involved in both classical and quantum models. In the end, instead of interpreting these parameters as a similarity measure between questions, we propose that they emerge due to the lack of knowledge concerned with a personal basis state and also due to uncertainties towards the state of world and towards the context of the questions.
The application of principles of Quantum Mechanics in areas outside of physics has been getting increasing attention in the scientific community in an emergent disciplined called Quantum Cognition. These principles have been applied to explain paradoxical situations that cannot be easily explained through classical theory. In quantum probability, events are characterised by a superposition state, which is represented by a state vector in a N-dimensional vector space. The probability of an event is given by the squared magnitude of the projection of this superposition state into the desired subspace. This geometric approach is very useful to explain paradoxical findings that involve order effects, but do we really need quantum principles for models that only involve projections? This work has two main goals. First, it is still not clear in the literature if a quantum projection model has any advantage towards a classical projection. We compared both models and concluded that the Quantum Projection model achieves the same results as its classical counterpart, because the quantum interference effects play no role in the computation of the probabilities. Second, it intends to propose an alternative relativistic interpretation for rotation parameters that are involved in both classical and quantum models. In the end, instead of interpreting these parameters as a similarity measure between questions, we propose that they emerge due to the lack of knowledge concerned with a personal basis state and also due to uncertainties towards the state of world and towards the context of the questions.
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.
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.
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.
Since the 70’s, researchers noticed that people do not follow the rules of probability theory while making decisions under risk.Just like quantum physics was created in order to accommodate paradoxical findings from classical physics, quantum cognition arose as a disciple with the promise of creating models that would accommodate and explain the violations found in human decision-making.In this work, we explore an alternative quantum structure to perform quantum probabilistic inferences. We propose a Quantum Probabilistic Graphical Model in order to predict human decisions under situations with high levels of uncertainty.Under the proposed network, if a node (event) is unobserved, then a particle can enter in a superposition state and produce interference effects. These effects provide some explanation in terms of cognition, since they can be seen as the feeling of confusion or ambiguity.This work also discusses the problem of creating a generalized quantum probabilistic model: the number of quantum parameters grows exponentially. We will see that for a given event, several outcomes are possible through quantum probability. A final question is posed and discussed: is it possible to find a method to assign quantum parameters in order to provide accurate predictions?
Quantum Mechanics represents one of the greatest triumphs of the scientific enterprise of the twentieth century. The stunning success of quantum theory has led to many revolutionary inventions and its extraordinary concepts describe the heart of several important real world applications like transistors and lasers. The theory makes accurate predictions about a wide range of physical phenomena and has historically withstood the tests and scrutiny of every experimental investigation. However, inspite of the fact that quantum theory is widely regarded by the scientific establishment as the fundamental theory of nature and is immensly successful and useful, its conceptual framework makes many predictions which are difficult to comprehend “classically. The theory is, pardoxically, powerful and confusing at the same time. Quantum theory’s unusual predictions originate from its basic formailsm which involves concepts like probability amplitudes and the linear superposition principle(Dirac, 1947). The quantum view appears abstract and counterintuitive and at odds with classical perceptions. Many of the conceptual problems of quantum mechanics are encompassed in what is known as the quantum measurement problem(Peres, 1986; von Neumann, 1932; Wheeler & Zurek, 1983). Conventionally, the measurement paradox is supposedly ’resolved’ by forcing a notion of a sudden collapse of the state vector of the system being measured. However, the nature of this mechanism is at odds with the basic tenets of quantum mechanics and hence may lie outside its realm thus questioning the validity of the theory it self. Closely related with the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is the question of its connection with the emergence of classicality and the elusive boundary between quantum and classical worlds. What is the connection between the ‘classical’ and the ‘quantum’ worlds? Is there a definite relationship? Are classical mechanics and quantum mechanics two mutually exclusive incompatible theories or are they two aspects of the same underlying philosophy? Classical objects are eventually composed of elements of the microworld which can be described quantum mechanically. So, how and where can there be a boundary between the two worlds? In the following section we begin by introducing the quantum measurement problem. In the next section we will discuss attempts to understand and explain away the underlying paradoxes in quantum theory as highlighted in the quantum measurement problem and the question of the quantum-classical connection. From among the various explanations that seek a resolution to the conceptual problems of quantum mechanics, we focus on the ‘environment induced decoherence theory’ an approach that employs the methods developed by several authors to analyse the quantum mechanics of Measurement in Quantum Mechanics: Decoherence and the Pointer Basis