The bounded rationality mainstream is based on interesting experiments showing human behaviors violating classical probability (CP) laws. Quantum probability (QP) has been shown to successfully figure out such issues, supporting the hypothesis that quantum mechanics is the central fundamental pillar for brain function and cognition emergence. We discuss the decision-making model (DMM), a paradigmatic instance of criticality, which deals with bounded rationality issues in a similar way as QP, generating choices that cannot be accounted by CP. We define this approach as criticality-induced bounded rationality (CIBR). For some aspects, CIBR is even more satisfactory than QP. Our work may contribute to considering criticality as another possible fundamental pillar in order to improve the understanding of cognition and of quantum mechanics as well.
The bounded rationality mainstream is based on interesting experiments showing human behaviors violating classical probability (CP) laws. Quantum probability (QP) has been shown to successfully figure out such issues, supporting the hypothesis that quantum mechanics is the central fundamental pillar for brain function and cognition emergence. We discuss the decision-making model (DMM), a paradigmatic instance of criticality, which deals with bounded rationality issues in a similar way as QP, generating choices that cannot be accounted by CP. We define this approach as criticality-induced bounded rationality (CIBR). For some aspects, CIBR is even more satisfactory than QP. Our work may contribute to considering criticality as another possible fundamental pillar in order to improve the understanding of cognition and of quantum mechanics as well.
Classical (Bayesian) probability (CP) theory has led to an influential research tradition for modeling cognitive processes. Cognitive scientists have been trained to work with CP principles for so long that it is hard even to imagine alternative ways to formalize probabilities. However, in physics, quantum probability (QP) theory has been the dominant probabilistic approach for nearly 100 years. Could QP theory provide us with any advantages in cognitive modeling as well? Note first that both CP and QP theory share the fundamental assumption that it is possible to model cognition on the basis of formal, probabilistic principles. But why consider a QP approach? The answers are that (1) there are many well-established empirical findings (e.g., from the influential Tversky, Kahneman research tradition) that are hard to reconcile with CP principles; and (2) these same findings have natural and straightforward explanations with quantum principles. In QP theory, probabilistic assessment is often strongly context- and order-dependent, individual states can be superposition states (that are impossible to associate with specific values), and composite systems can be entangled (they cannot be decomposed into their subsystems). All these characteristics appear perplexing from a classical perspective. However, our thesis is that they provide a more accurate and powerful account of certain cognitive processes. We first introduce QP theory and illustrate its application with psychological examples. We then review empirical findings that motivate the use of quantum theory in cognitive theory, but also discuss ways in which QP and CP theories converge. Finally, we consider the implications of a QP theory approach to cognition for human rationality.
Quantum mechanics emerged as the result of a successful resolution of stringent empirical and profound conceptual conflicts within the development of atomic physics at the beginning of the last century. At first glance, it seems to be bizarre and even ridiculous to apply ideas of quantum physics in order to improve current psychological and linguistic or semantic ideas. However, a closer look shows that there are some parallels in the development of quantum physics and advanced theories of cognitive science. In psychology, geometric models of meaning have a long tradition. However, they suffer from many shortcomings which are illustrated by discussing several puzzles of bounded rationality. In the first part of this article, we argue that the present account of quantum cognition - taking quantum probabilities rather than classical probabilities - can give a more systematic description of these puzzles than the alternate and rather eclectic treatments in the traditional framework of bounded rationality. Unfortunately, the quantum probabilistic treatment does not always and does not automatically provide a deeper understanding and a true explanation of these puzzles. In the second part of this article, we explain the foundational issue from the perspective of Piron, Foulis, Randall, and others, and we apply it to the foundation of quantum cognition. In this connection, we show that quantum probabilities are of (virtual) conceptual necessity if grounded in an abstract algebraic framework of orthomodular lattices. This framework is motivated by assuming partial Boolean algebras (describing particular perspectives) that are combined into a uniform system while considering certain capacity restrictions. It is at this point that one important aspect of the whole idea of bounded rationality directly enters the theoretical scenery of quantum cognition: resource limitation.
We consider several puzzles of bounded rationality. These include the Allais- and Ellsberg paradox, the disjunction effect, and related puzzles. We argue that the present account of quantum cognition—taking quantum probabilities rather than classical probabilities—can give a more systematic description of these puzzles than the alternate treatments in the traditional frameworks of bounded rationality. Unfortunately, the quantum probabilistic treatment does not always provide a deeper understanding and a true explanation of these puzzles. One reason is that quantum approaches introduce additional parameters which possibly can be fitted to empirical data but which do not necessarily explain them. Hence, the phenomenological research has to be augmented by responding to deeper foundational issues. In this article, we make the general distinction between foundational and phenomenological research programs, explaining the foundational issue of quantum cognition from the perspective of operational realism. This framework is motivated by assuming partial Boolean algebras (describing particular perspectives). They are combined into a uniform system (i.e. orthomodular lattice) via a mechanism preventing the simultaneous realization of perspectives. Gleason’s theorem then automatically leads to a distinction between probabilities that are defined by pure states and probabilities arising from the statistical mixture of pure states. This formal distinction relates to the conceptual distinction between risk and ignorance. Another outcome identifies quantum aspects in dynamic macro-systems using the framework of symbolic dynamics. Finally, we discuss several ideas that are useful for justifying complementarity in cognitive systems.
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.
Organizational decision making is often explored with theories from the heuristics and biases research program, which have demonstrated great value as descriptions of how people in organizations make decisions. Nevertheless, rational analysis and classical probability theory are still seen by many as the best accounts of how decisions should be made and classical probability theory is the preferred framework for cognitive modelling for many researchers. The focus of this work is quantum probability theory, an alternative probabilistic framework. Results in decision making, which appear paradoxical from a perspective of classical probability theory, may make perfect sense if one adopts quantum probability theory. We review some cognitive models of decision making based on quantum probability theory. Each of these models is based on a challenge to prescription from classical probability theory. The transition from labeling a particular behavior as irrational, by classical probability standards, to (potentially) rational (or, at any rate, not fallacious), raises interesting possibilities, including that of characterizing certain heuristics in formal, probabilistic terms.
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.