Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 70 references

The adaptive nature of confirmation bias

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Optimal evidence selection to minimize error in binary decisions produces confirmation bias as a rational strategy.

desk verdict Confirmation bias comes out of optimal evidence choice in their matrix model, but the result looks tied to that non-classical representation. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.23325 v1 pith:N45GA4ZO submitted 2026-06-22 q-bio.NC quant-ph

Dorje C. Brody , Karl J. Friston , Bernhard K. Meister , Emmanuel M. Pothos This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCquant-ph
keywords confirmationbiasbinaryhypothesistestingsequentialsamplingactiveinferencesquare-rootprobabilitieserrorprobabilityminimization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper models observations as matrices on square-root probability spaces rather than ordinary random variables. In binary hypothesis testing, the choice of evidence that minimizes expected error probability turns out to favor evidence consistent with the current hypothesis. This built-in confirmation bias yields two concrete benefits during sequential sampling: the decision process needs only the smallest memory capacity, and the probability of error falls exponentially with the number of samples. The same optimal evidence selection is recovered when the decision maker instead maximizes information gain under active inference.

What carries the argument

Modeling observations by matrices on the space of square-root probabilities, with optimality defined as minimising expected error probability in binary hypothesis testing.

What would settle it

An experiment or simulation in which the evidence sequence that minimises expected error in a binary task fails to favor confirming evidence, or in which error probability does not drop exponentially with sample size under the optimal rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the problem of binary hypothesis testing, an optimal evidence choice that minimises the expected error probability leads to a confirmation bias; in sequential evidence sampling this implicit optimality produces the smallest memory capacity together with an error probability that can be reduced exponentially in sample size.

Load-bearing premise

Observations are modeled by matrices rather than random variables on a probability space, and optimality is defined as minimising expected error probability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Confirmation bias functions as a feature of rational evidence selection rather than a departure from it.
  • Decision makers following the optimal rule operate with minimal memory storage requirements.
  • Error probability decreases exponentially rather than linearly or polynomially with added samples.
  • The identical evidence choice is obtained when the objective is switched from error minimisation to information maximisation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework may predict that confirmation bias appears most strongly in tasks where memory capacity is tightly constrained.
  • It suggests checking whether real sequential sampling behavior matches the matrix-based selection rule in controlled binary choice experiments.
  • The equivalence between error-minimising and information-maximising rules could be tested by varying the cost of memory across different decision environments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that confirmation bias can be formulated in the space of square-root probabilities (quantum probability), where observations are modeled as matrices. In binary hypothesis testing, the evidence choice that minimizes expected error probability is shown to produce confirmation bias as an optimal strategy. In sequential sampling this yields two evolutionary advantages: minimal memory capacity and exponential reduction of error probability with sample size. The same optimal evidence is recovered from an active-inference (maximum-information) criterion, and the framework supplies a protocol for active quantum inference.

Significance. If the central derivation holds, the work supplies a concrete optimality-based account in which confirmation bias is not a departure from rationality but a direct consequence of it, together with explicit computational advantages (memory and exponential error decay) that are falsifiable in principle. The agreement between error-minimization and active-inference routes, and the provision of an implementable matrix protocol, are additional strengths.

major comments (3)
  1. [Observation model / binary hypothesis testing formulation] The observation model (matrices on the square-root probability space rather than random variables on a classical probability space) is load-bearing for the claim that optimality implies confirmation bias. The manuscript must demonstrate either that the bias result survives translation to ordinary random variables or that the matrix representation is required on independent grounds; otherwise the bias may be an artifact of the chosen representation.
  2. [Central optimality derivation] The derivation that the error-minimizing evidence choice produces confirmation bias (and the two stated advantages) is not visible in the abstract and must be checked for circularity: the optimality criterion must not be defined in a way that forces the bias by construction. Explicit steps linking the matrix structure to the bias behavior are required.
  3. [Sequential sampling / evolutionary advantages] The exponential error reduction and minimal-memory claims are stated as consequences of sequential sampling under the optimal policy. The precise scaling (e.g., which norm or distance yields the exponential rate) and the memory-capacity argument (which quantity is being minimized) need explicit verification against the matrix model.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract equates square-root probabilities with quantum probability structures; a brief clarifying sentence on the precise equivalence would help readers outside the subfield.
  2. Notation for the matrix observations and the error-probability functional should be introduced consistently before the optimality argument.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Observation model / binary hypothesis testing formulation] The observation model (matrices on the square-root probability space rather than random variables on a classical probability space) is load-bearing for the claim that optimality implies confirmation bias. The manuscript must demonstrate either that the bias result survives translation to ordinary random variables or that the matrix representation is required on independent grounds; otherwise the bias may be an artifact of the chosen representation.

    Authors: The matrix representation on the square-root probability space is motivated independently by the quantum cognition literature, where it captures non-commutative effects and interference that align with observed cognitive phenomena. To address the concern directly, the revised manuscript will include a new subsection comparing the classical random-variable formulation under the identical error-minimization criterion. We will demonstrate that confirmation bias does not arise classically, thereby establishing that the matrix structure is required on independent grounds. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Central optimality derivation] The derivation that the error-minimizing evidence choice produces confirmation bias (and the two stated advantages) is not visible in the abstract and must be checked for circularity: the optimality criterion must not be defined in a way that forces the bias by construction. Explicit steps linking the matrix structure to the bias behavior are required.

    Authors: The optimality criterion is defined strictly as minimization of expected error probability, a standard objective that does not presuppose bias. Confirmation bias arises as a derived consequence of this minimization when performed in the matrix algebra. The revised manuscript will expand the central derivation with all intermediate algebraic steps, explicitly tracing how the matrix operations select confirming evidence without circularity. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Sequential sampling / evolutionary advantages] The exponential error reduction and minimal-memory claims are stated as consequences of sequential sampling under the optimal policy. The precise scaling (e.g., which norm or distance yields the exponential rate) and the memory-capacity argument (which quantity is being minimized) need explicit verification against the matrix model.

    Authors: The revised manuscript will supply the missing explicit verification: the exponential rate will be stated with respect to the trace norm on the matrix space, and the memory-capacity argument will be formalized as the requirement to retain only the current square-root probability vector (rather than the full observation history). These calculations will be added to the sequential-sampling section. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper models observations via matrices on square-root probabilities and defines optimality as minimising expected error probability for binary hypothesis testing; it then derives that the resulting optimal evidence choice produces confirmation bias along with the stated memory and exponential-error advantages. This constitutes a derived consequence within the chosen framework rather than a definitional equivalence or a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The agreement with the active-inference formulation is shown separately and does not rely on load-bearing self-citation for the central claim. No equation or step reduces the target result to its inputs by construction, and the derivation remains self-contained against the stated modelling assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on adopting the quantum probability framework (square-root probabilities and matrix observations) and the specific optimality criterion without deriving them from more basic principles or providing independent evidence.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Observations can be modelled by matrices in the space of square-root probabilities.
    Stated in abstract as the core modeling choice for evidence.
  • domain assumption Optimality is defined as minimising expected error probability in binary hypothesis testing.
    Central to deriving that optimal evidence choice produces confirmation bias.
invented entities (1)
  • Matrix-based observation model
    purpose: To represent evidence in quantum probability space instead of classical random variables
    Introduced as the framework for modeling observations; no independent evidence provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The adaptive nature of confirmation bias." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N45GA4ZO

@misc{pith2026260623325,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The adaptive nature of confirmation bias},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N45GA4ZO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.23325}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, the phenomenon generally classified as confirmation bias is formulated on the space of square-root probabilities (or equivalently, using the structures of quantum probability). In this framework, observations are modelled by matrices, rather than random variables on a probability space. In the problem of binary hypothesis testing, an optimal evidence choice minimises the expected error probability. We show that the resulting optimal choice of evidence leads to a confirmation bias, thus revealing a surprising aspect of rationality that encompasses confirmation bias. Specifically, in sequential evidence sampling, the implicit optimality leads to two remarkable evolutionary advantages, namely, (a) the decision maker requires only the smallest memory capacity, and (b) the error probability can be reduced exponentially in sample size. A complementary approach based on the framework of active inference -- where the decision maker seeks evidence that provides maximum information -- is then considered. The resulting optimal evidence is shown to agree with the one obtained by minimising error probability. Our framework provides an easy-to-implement protocol for an active quantum inference, whereby the optimal evidence choice for making an inference is sought over the space of matrices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23325 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alloy, L. B. & Tabachnik, N. (1984) Assessment of covariation by humans and animals: The joint influence of prior expectations and current situational information.Psychological Review 91, 112-149

    1984

  2. [4]

    & Romanczuk, P

    Bergerot, C., Barfuss, W. & Romanczuk, P. (2024) Moderate confirmation bias enhances decision-making in groups of reinforcement-learning agents.PLOS Computational Biology20, e1012404

    2024

  3. [7]

    Brody, D. C. (2027) Mathematical politics. To appear inSimplicity Behind Absurdity: The Power of Quantum Thinking, A. Iriki & A. Khrennikov (eds), Str¨ ungmann Forum Reports (Boston: The MIT Press)

    2027

  4. [9]

    & Meister, B

    Brody, D. & Meister, B. (1996a) Minimum decision cost for quantum ensembles.Physical Review Letters76, 1-5

  5. [10]

    Brody, D. C. & Meister, B. K. (1996b) Bayesian inference in quantum systems.PhysicaA223, 348-374

  6. [11]

    Brody, D. C. & Trewavas, A. J. (2022) Biological efficiency in processing information.Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society LondonA479, 20220809

    2022

  7. [13]

    & Watts, P

    Costello, F. & Watts, P. (2014) Surprisingly rational: Probability theory plus noise explains biases in judgment.Psychological Review121, 463-480

    2014

  8. [14]

    (2003) The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them

    Croskerry, P. (2003) The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges,78, 775- 780

    2003

Show all 70 references
  1. [15]

    D., Kakade, S

    Daw, N. D., Kakade, S. & Dayan, P. (2002) Opponent interactions between serotonin and dopamine.Neural Networks15, 603-616

    2002

  2. [16]

    & Smith, A

    De Finetti, B., Machi, A. & Smith, A. (1993)Theory of Probability: A Critical Introductory Treatment. (New York: Wiley)

    1993

  3. [18]

    Doherty, M. E. & Mynatt, C. R. (1986) The magical number one. In D. Moates & R. Butrick (Eds.),Inference Ohio University Interdisciplinary Conference 86, Proceedings of the Inter- disciplinary Conference on Inference; pp. 221-230. (Athens: Ohio University)

    1986

  4. [19]

    Evans, J. St. B. T. (1989)Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum). 14

    1989

  5. [20]

    H., Hayden, B

    Farashahi, S., Donahue, C. H., Hayden, B. Y., Lee, D. & Soltani, A. (2019) Flexible combi- nation of reward information across primates.Nature human behaviour3, 1215-1224

    2019

  6. [21]

    Farmer, R. E. A. (1999)The macroeconomics of self-fulfilling prophecies. (Boston: The MIT Press)

    1999

  7. [22]

    F., Levin, M

    Fields, C., Friston, K., Glazebrook, J. F., Levin, M. (2022) A free energy principle for generic quantum systems.Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology173, 36-59

    2022

  8. [23]

    (2016) Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption

    Flaxman, S., Sharad, G., & Rao, J. (2016) Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 298-320

    2016

  9. [24]

    Friston, K. J. (2013) Life as we know it.Journal of the Royal Society Interface10, 20130475

    2013

  10. [25]

    & Harrison, L

    Friston, K., Kilner, J. & Harrison, L. (2006) A free energy principle for the brain.Journal of Physiology – Pairs100, 70-87

    2006

  11. [26]

    Gershman, S. J. (2015) Do learning rates adapt to the distribution of rewards?Psychonomic Bulletin and Review22, 1320-1327

    2015

  12. [27]

    Gershman, S. J. (2020) Origin of perseveration in the trade-off between reward and complexity. Cognition204, 104394

    2020

  13. [28]

    & Leung, T

    Goette, L., Han, H. & Leung, T. K. (2020) Information overload and confirmation bias. Cam- bridge Working Papers in Economics

    2020

  14. [29]

    L., Chater, N., Kemp, C., Perfors, A

    Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Kemp, C., Perfors, A. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2010) Probabilis- tic models of cognition: exploring representations and inductive biases.Trends in Cognitive Sciences14, 357-364

    2010

  15. [30]

    & Khrennikov, A

    Haven, E. & Khrennikov, A. (2016) Statistical and subjective interpretations of probability in quantum-like models of cognition and decision making.Journal of Mathematical Psychology 74, 82-91

    2016

  16. [33]

    Holevo, A. S. (1973) Statistical decision theory for quantum systems.Journal of Multivariate Analysis3, 337-394

    1973

  17. [34]

    & Protter, P

    Jacod, J. & Protter, P. (2004)Probability Essentials(Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag)

    2004

  18. [35]

    (2000) Seven (indeed, plus or minus two) and the detection of correlations.Psy- chological Review107, 397-402

    Kareev, Y. (2000) Seven (indeed, plus or minus two) and the detection of correlations.Psy- chological Review107, 397-402

    2000

  19. [36]

    Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Computing Process

    Landauer, R., 1961. Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Computing Process. IBM Jour- nal of Research and Development 5, 183-191

    1961

  20. [37]

    & Bogacz, R

    Lefebvre, G., Summerfield, C. & Bogacz, R. (2022) A normative account of confirmation bias during reinforcement learning.Neural Computation34, 307-337

    2022

  21. [38]

    Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017) Psychology’s replication crisis and the grant culture: Righting the ship. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(4), 660-664

    2017

  22. [39]

    Lindley, D. V. 1956 On a Measure of the Information Provided by an Experiment.Annals of Mathematical Statistics27, 986-1005

    1956

  23. [40]

    Lopes, L. L. (1982) Doing the impossible: A note on induction and experience of randomness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition8, 626-636

    1982

  24. [41]

    K., Hahn, U

    Madsen, J. K., Hahn, U. & Pilditch, T. D. (2020) The impact of partial source dependence on belief and reliability revision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition46, 1795-1805

    2020

  25. [42]

    H., Peters, M

    Odegaard, B., Grimaldi, P., Cho, S. H., Peters, M. A., Lau, H., & Basso, M. A. (2018) Su- 15 perior colliculus neuronal ensemble activity signals optimal rather than subjective confidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115, E1588-E1597

    2018

  26. [43]

    & Takahashi, T

    Ohta, H., Satori, K., Takarada, Y., Arake, M., Ishizuka, T., Morimoto, Y. & Takahashi, T. (2021). The asymmetric learning rates of murine exploratory behavior in sparse reward envi- ronments.Neural Networks143, 218–229

    2021

  27. [44]

    & Friston, K

    Ororbia, A. & Friston, K. 2023 Mortal Computation: A Foundation for Biomimetic Intelli- gence, arXiv:2311.09589

    2023

  28. [45]

    & Wynne, M

    Pang, D., Bleetman, A., Bleetman, D. & Wynne, M. (2017) The foreign body that never was: the effects of confirmation bias.British Journal of Hospital Medicine,78, 350-351

    2017

  29. [46]

    & Friston, K

    Parr, T., Pezzulo, G. & Friston, K. J. (2022)Active Inference(Boston: The MIT Press)

    2022

  30. [47]

    & Hills, T

    Pilgrim, C., Sanborn, A., Malthouse, E. & Hills, T. T. (2024) Confirmation bias emerges from an approximation to Bayesian reasoning.Cognition245, 105693

    2024

  31. [48]

    Pothos, E. M. & Busemeyer, J. R. (2013) Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling?Behavioral and Brain Sciences36, 255-327

    2013

  32. [49]

    Pothos, E. M. & Busemeyer, J. R. (2022) Quantum cognition.Annual Reviews of Psychology 73, 749-778

    2022

  33. [50]

    Ramirez, J. C. & Marshall, J. A. R. (2017) Can natural selection encode Bayesian priors? Journal of Theoretical Biology426, 57-66

    2017

  34. [52]

    (2010) Wrongful Convictions: Adversarial and Inquisitorial Themes.North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation,35, 387-

    Roach, K. (2010) Wrongful Convictions: Adversarial and Inquisitorial Themes.North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation,35, 387-

    2010

  35. [53]

    E., Vivo, P

    Sikder, O., Smith, R. E., Vivo, P. & Livan, G. (2020) A minimalistic model of bias, polarization and misinformation in social networks. Scientific reports, 10(1), 5493

    2020

  36. [54]

    & Baronchelli, A

    Starnini, M., Frasca, M. & Baronchelli, A. (2016) Emergence of metapopulations and echo chambers in mobile agents. Scientific reports, 6(1), 31834

    2016

  37. [55]

    (2018) Fake news: How our brains lead us into echo chambers that promote racism and sexism

    Stibel, J. (2018) Fake news: How our brains lead us into echo chambers that promote racism and sexism. USA Today. Retrieved October 8, 2018

    2018

  38. [56]

    Stolyarova, A., Rakhshan, M., Peters, M. A. K., Lau, H., Soltani, A. & Izquierdo, A. (2019) Contributions of anterior cingulate cortex and basolateral amygdala to decision confidence and learning under uncertainty.Nature Communications10, 1-14

    2019

  39. [58]

    S., Yearsley, J

    Trueblood, J. S., Yearsley, J. M. & Pothos, E. M. (2017) A quantum probability framework for human probabilistic inference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General146, 1307-1341

    2017

  40. [59]

    (1960) On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology12, 129-140

    Wason, P. (1960) On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology12, 129-140

    1960

  41. [60]

    Wason, P. C. (1961) Response to affirmative and negative binary statements.British Journal of Psychology52, 133-142

    1961

  42. [62]

    evidence

    Zhu, J. Q., Sanborn, A. N. & Chater, N. (2020) The Bayesian sampler: Generic Bayesian inference causes incoherence in human probability judgments.Psychological Review127, 719- 748. 16 A. Rational updating of belief Our definition of a rational updating of belief under uncertai...

    2020

  43. [63]

    Similarly we have ˆR2 −( ˆR1 ˆΠ∗ 1 + ˆR2 ˆΠ∗

    = ( ˆR1 − ˆR2)ˆΠ∗ 2 =p 2(ˆρ2 −γˆρ1)ˆΠ∗ 2 ≥0,(32) 25 whereγ=p 1/p2. Similarly we have ˆR2 −( ˆR1 ˆΠ∗ 1 + ˆR2 ˆΠ∗

  44. [64]

    bit” can only take two distinct values 0 and 1, a quantum bit, or a “qubit

    = ( ˆR2 − ˆR1)ˆΠ∗ 1 =−p 2(ˆρ2 −γˆρ1)ˆΠ∗ 1 ≥0.(33) Hence if we writeη i and|η i⟩for the eigenvalues and eigenstates of the Hermitian matrix ˆρ2 −γˆρ1, then fromp 2 ≥0 we have it from (32) and (33) that ⟨ηi|(ˆρ2 −γˆρ1)ˆΠ∗ 2|ηi⟩=η i⟨ηi|ˆΠ∗ 2|ηi⟩ ≥0 (34) and that ⟨ηi|(ˆρ2 −γˆρ1)ˆΠ...

    2015

  45. [65]

    Belavkin, V. P. (1975) Optimal multiple quantum statistical hypothesis testing.Stochastics 1, 315-345

    1975

  46. [66]

    Berger, J. O. (1985)Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis(New York: Springer)

    1985

  47. [67]

    Brody, D. C. (2022) Noise, fake news, and tenacious Bayesians.Frontiers in Psychology13, 797904

    2022

  48. [68]

    Brody, D. C. (2023) Quantum formalism for the dynamics of cognitive psychology.Scientific Reports13, 16104

    2023

  49. [69]

    Brody, D. C. (2026) Mathematical politics. InStr¨ ungmann Forum Report, Simplicity behind Absurdity, A. Iriki & A. Khrennikov (eds) (Berlin: Springer)

    2026

  50. [70]

    Brody, D. C. & Hook, D. W. (2009) Information geometry in vapour–liquid equilibrium. Journal of PhysicsA42, 023001

    2009

  51. [71]

    Busemeyer, J. R. & Wang, Z. (2015) What is quantum cognition, and how is it applied to psychology?Current Directions in Psychological Science24, 163-169

    2015

  52. [72]

    DeGroot, M. H. (1970)Optimal Statistical Decisions(New York: McGraw-Hill)

    1970

  53. [73]

    Gel’fand, I. M. & Yaglom, A. M. (1957) Calculation of the amount of information about a random function contained in another such function.Uspekhi Matematicheskikh Nauk12, 3-52

    1957

  54. [74]

    Helstrom, C. W. (1967) Detection theory and quantum mechanics.Information and Control 10, 254-291

    1967

  55. [75]

    Helstrom,C. W. (1976)Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory(New York: Academic Press)

    1976

  56. [76]

    Holevo, A. S. (1973) Statistical decision theory for quantum systems.Journal of Multivariate Analysis3, 337-394. 31

    1973

  57. [77]

    G., Ross, L

    Lord, C. G., Ross, L. & Lepper, M. R. (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37, 2098-2109

    1979

  58. [78]

    Malley, J. D. & Hornstein, J. (1993) Quantum statistical inference.Statistical Science8, 433- 457

    1993

  59. [79]

    & Khrennikov, A

    Ozawa, M. & Khrennikov, A. (2023) Nondistributivity of human logic and violation of response replicability effect in cognitive psychology.Journal of Mathematical Psychology112, 102739

    2023

  60. [80]

    Rao, C. R. (1954) On the use and interpretation of distance functions in statisticsBull. Inst. Int. Stat.34, 90-97

    1954

  61. [81]

    Stratonovich, R. L. (1973) The quantum generalization of optimal statistical estimation and hypothesis testing.Stochastics1, 87-126

    1973

  62. [82]

    P., Kennedy, K

    Yuen, H. P., Kennedy, K. S. & Lax, M. (1975) Optimum testing of multiple hypotheses in quantum detection theory.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory21, 125-1xx

    1975

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.