Soft Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 1455–1465 | Cite as

Effectiveness of the quantum-mechanical formalism in cognitive modeling

  • Sandro Sozzo


Traditional approaches to cognitive psychology are founded on a classical vision of logic and probability theory. According to this perspective, the probabilistic aspects of human reasoning can be formalized in a Kolmogorovian probability framework and reveal underlying Boolean-type logical structures. This vision has been seriously challenged by various discoveries in experimental psychology in the last three decades. Meanwhile, growing research indicates that quantum theory provides the conceptual and mathematical framework to deal with these classically problematical situations. In this paper, we apply a general quantum-based modeling scheme to represent two types of cognitive situations where deviations from classical probability occur in human decisions, namely, ‘conceptual categorization’ and ‘decision making’. We show that our quantum-theoretic modeling faithfully describes different sets of experimental data, explaining the observed deviations from classicality in terms of genuine quantum effects. These results may contribute to the development of applied disciplines where cognitive processes are involved, such as natural language processing, semantic analysis, and information retrieval.


Quantum theory Cognitive modeling Concept combination Decision theory 


  1. Aerts D (1986) A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics. J Math Phys 27:202–210MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts D (2009) Quantum structure in cognition. J Math Psychol 53:314–348MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Aerts D, Aerts S (1995) Applications of quantum statistics in psychological studies of decision processes. Found Sci 1:85–97MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Aerts D, Aerts S, Broekaert J, Gabora L (2000) The violation of Bell inequalities in the macroworld. Found Phys 30:1387–1414MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aerts D, Broekaert J, Gabora L, Sozzo S (2013) Quantum structure and human thought. Behav Brain Sci 36:274–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aerts D, Broekaert J, Smets S (1999) A quantum structure description of the liar paradox. Int J Theor Phys 38:3231–3239MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Aerts D, Broekaert J, Sozzo S, Veloz T (2014) Meaning-focused and quantum-inspired information retrieval. Lect Notes Comput Sci 8369:71–83Google Scholar
  8. Aerts D, Gabora L (2005a) A theory of concepts and their combinations I: the structure of the sets of contexts and properties. Kybernetes 34:167–191 Google Scholar
  9. Aerts D, Gabora L (2005b) A theory of concepts and their combinations II: a Hilbert space representation. Kybernetes 34:192–221CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Aerts D, Gabora L, Sozzo S (2013) Concepts and their dynamics: a quantum-theoretic modeling of human thought. Top Cogn Sci 5:737–772Google Scholar
  11. Aerts D, Sozzo S (2011) Quantum structure in cognition. Why and how concepts are entangled. Lect Notes Comput Sci 7052:116–127MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Aerts D, Sozzo S (2014) Quantum entanglement in conceptual combinations. Int J Theor Phys 53:3587–3603CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Aerts D, Sozzo S, Tapia J (2014) Identifying quantum structures in the Ellsberg paradox. Int J Theor Phys 53:3666–3682MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Aerts D, Sozzo S, Veloz T (2015) Quantum structure in cognition and the foundations of human reasoning. Int J Theor Phys. doi: 10.1007/s10773-015-2717-9 (online)
  15. Busemeyer JR, Bruza PD (2012) Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiara Dalla ML, Giuntini R, Negri E (2015) A quantum approach to vagueness and to the semantics of music. Int J Theor Phys. doi: 10.1007/s10773-015-2694-z (online)
  17. Dirac PAM (1958) Quantum mechanics, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quart J Econ 75:643–669CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Hampton JA (1988a) Overextension of conjunctive concepts: Evidence for a unitary model for concept typicality and class inclusion. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 14:12–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hampton JA (1988b) Disjunction of natural concepts. Mem Cogn 16:579–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haven E, Khrennikov AY (2013) Quantum social science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Khrennikov AY (2010) Ubiquitous quantum structure. Springer, BerlinCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Machina MJ (2009) Risk, ambiguity, and the dark dependence axioms. Am Econ Rev 99:385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morier DM, Borgida E (1984) The conjuction fallacy: a task specific phenomena? Pers Soc Psychol Bull 10:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Osherson D, Smith E (1981) On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition 9:35–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pitowsky, I.: Quantum Probability, Quantum Logic. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 321. Berlin: Springer, Berlin (1989)Google Scholar
  27. Rosch E (1973) Natural categories. Cogn Psychol 4:328–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Savage LJ (1954) The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Sozzo S (2014) A quantum probability explanation in Fock space for borderline contradictions. J Math Psychol 58:1–12MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Sozzo S (2015) Conjunction and negation of natural concepts: a quantum-theoretic modeling. J Math Psychol 66:83–102MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1983) Extension versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychol Rev 90:293–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tversky A, Shafir E (1992) The disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty. Psychol. Sci. 3:305–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Management and IQSCSLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations