Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Cognition in Superposition: Quantum Models in AI, Finance, Defence, Gaming and Collective Behaviour

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Beliefs as quantum energy levels predict opinion polarization and perception switching, a review claims.

desk verdict A clear, application-oriented review of the author's own quantum-cognition models, but the predictive-superiority claims outrun the evidence; the belief-potential-well mapping is stipulated, and the comparisons are illustrative, not tests. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20098 v1 pith:PITREODA submitted 2025-08-11 physics.soc-ph

Ivan S. Maksymov This is my paper
classification physics.soc-ph
keywords quantumcognitionopinionpolarisationbackfireeffectbistableperceptiontunnellingneuralnetworkdecision-makingunderriskopticalillusionssocialnetworks
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

This review chapter argues that quantum-mechanical formalism—superposition, interference, tunnelling, and quantised energy levels—is a productive modelling framework for human cognition, not just a metaphor. It claims that treating a person's beliefs as energy levels in a potential well and social interactions as overlapping wells allows the Schrödinger equation to reproduce phenomena classical models struggle with: bistable perception of ambiguous images, the backfire effect in opinion dynamics, and choice variability in risky decisions. The same logic extends to AI, where a quantum-tunnelling neural network classifies ambiguous images with human-like uncertainty. For a sympathetic reader, the payoff is a single formal language for perception, belief, and choice, together with a freely modifiable computational code that invites direct experimentation.

What carries the argument

The key object is the mapping of an individual's belief system onto a potential well: discrete energy levels encode belief strengths, well geometry encodes the content of views, and overlapping wells model social interactions. Solving the Schrödinger equation for such a network yields energy-band formation corresponding to opinion clustering and separation. Quantum tunnelling through barriers between wells supplies the transitions that classical binary models cannot capture; in neural networks it serves as an activation function that introduces quantum-inspired degrees of freedom during training.

What would settle it

Use a well-documented opinion-polarisation dataset with before/after exposure to opposing views, compute the energy-level structure the model assigns to the measured beliefs, and check whether the predicted band formation and backfire threshold match observed probabilities; the model fails if the response to contradiction follows a continuous classical variable rather than the discrete-level structure. A second falsifier: train a quantum-tunnelling network and an identical classical network on the same images, then compare their error patterns; if the quantum network's errors do not align more

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This review chapter claims that the mathematics of quantum mechanics—superposition, interference, tunnelling, and discrete energy levels—can serve as a working model for human cognition and collective behaviour. Treating an individual's belief system as a potential well with quantised energy levels, and social interaction as overlapping wells, the author solves the Schrödinger equation to reproduce opinion clustering, radicalisation, and the backfire effect. The same framework is extended to bistable perception (e.g., the Necker cube), decision-making under risk in video games, and quantum-tunnelling neural networks that mimic human-like uncertainty in classifying images. The chapter's centr

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a potential well and its discrete energy levels can represent a person's belief system—strong beliefs as widely spaced levels, interactions as overlapping wells—such that solving the Schrödinger equation predicts real opinion change; this mapping is asserted rather than derived, and the model's success is judged qualitatively.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the potential-well model is correct, opinion-polarisation dynamics—including asymmetric backfire responses—follow directly from well geometry without needing additional free parameters.
  • Bistable perception data showing superposition-like neural responses would be explained by oscillatory wavefunction evolution rather than binary Markov switching.
  • The quantum-tunnelling network's uncertainty and error patterns could serve as a human-like benchmark for AI perception, especially in safety-critical settings.
  • A physical quantum (or analogue neuromorphic) implementation of these models would constitute a genuine quantum-neuromorphic system and could be tested against quantum-brain theories of consciousness.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The author's qualitative 'better than classical' comparisons rest on case-by-case fits; a systematic quantitative benchmark against stochastic-choice models on the same datasets would test whether the quantum formalism earns its added complexity.
  • The energy-level mapping suggests a testable prediction: individuals with more rigid belief systems should show larger effective 'level spacings' in response-time or neural data, tying model parameters to psychophysical measurements.
  • If tunnelling is what gives the quantum-tunnelling network its human-like uncertainty, an ablation experiment that replaces the tunnelling activation with a comparable stochastic activation should degrade human-like error patterns, directly testing the mechanism.
  • The framework's extension to gender fluidity via the same quantum machinery implies that apparently diverse cognitive phenomena share a common formal core, a claim worth probing with independent data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper is an expository chapter arguing that quantum-inspired models, particularly ones incorporating quantum tunnelling, provide a better explanatory and predictive account of human perception, opinion polarization, and decision-making than classical models. It presents numerical simulations of a Schrödinger wave packet in double-slit and barrier geometries, interprets these as models of bistable perception (Necker cube), maps a social network onto potential wells whose discrete energy levels represent beliefs, applies a magnetisation model to a 'Deal or No Deal' video game choice, and reports comparisons of a quantum-tunnelling neural network (QT-NN) with a classical network on Fashion-MNIST. It also discusses speculative extensions to military AI and responsible-AI ethics. The central claim is that the quantum framework 'offers new explanatory and predictive power' (Abstract) across these domains.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would offer a genuinely transdisciplinary bridge between quantum formalism and behavioural science, with practical implications for AI, human–machine teaming, and collective behaviour. The manuscript has useful strengths: it provides accessible Python code for the Schrödinger-equation simulations, presents exact energy solutions for the potential-well band formation, and surveys a wide literature in quantum cognition. These are real contributions that make the manuscript reproducible at the level of the illustrative simulations. However, the paper's evidence for predictive superiority is currently qualitative and, in the few quantitative comparisons, statistically thin. The value of the paper is therefore largely as a research roadmap or overview rather than as a demonstration of the claimed predictive power.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (1), Figure 6] The load-bearing mapping between human beliefs and the discrete energy levels E_n ∝ (n/L)^2 of a rectangular potential well is introduced by assertion ('it has been proposed', following refs [18,29,27]), not derived from a cognitive mechanism, and no empirical procedure specifies how an observed belief distribution fixes L or the well geometry. The reported reproductions of the backfire effect and one- versus two-sided polarization therefore rely on a stipulated correspondence and on tunable well geometries. This is a circularity risk: the model can be adjusted post hoc to match symmetric or asymmetric responses. Without an out-of-sample prediction or a measurement protocol linking the model parameters to data, the polarization results in Figures 6 and 7 do not follow from the model.
  2. [§5.2, Figure 12] The only quantitative AI comparison uses a single 50-image subset of the 'Trouser' category (93.2% vs 90%) and one 50-image subset of 'Ankle Boot' (92.4% vs 100%). No confidence intervals, repeated runs, or significance tests are reported. Moreover, the Ankle-Boot result favours the classical model, so the claim of 'superior overall performance' is not established by the reported numbers. The paper needs a clearly defined superiority criterion and a full-dataset comparison with uncertainty quantification (e.g., bootstrapped CIs or paired tests) before the QT-NN can be said to outperform the classical network.
  3. [§4.3, Figure 9] The magnetisation model's agreement with the 'Deal or No Deal' experimental data is presented visually, with the model output denoted by markers and the experimental data as a dotted curve, and only a 'guide to the eye' solid line. No goodness-of-fit statistic, likelihood, or model comparison against EUT/CPT/Fechner/Luce baselines is provided. The sentence that 'no previous theory has been able to offer' an adequate explanation is therefore unsupported by the evidence shown.
  4. [§6, §7] The manuscript itself concedes that 'further human trials are required for definitive validation' (§6) and that model validity is conditional on 'underlying idealisations and data assumptions hold empirically' (§7). These are not peripheral caveats; they directly undermine the Abstract's claim that the models 'demonstrate' new predictive power. The paper should either provide the missing validation (or cite published validation with full statistical detail) or explicitly reframe the contribution as a set of falsifiable hypotheses and illustrative simulations rather than a demonstrated predictive advantage.
  5. [General evidence base] Much of the evidence for the central claim is drawn from the author's own prior publications (e.g., refs [27,28,36,37,136,137,174]). While self-citation is not itself an error, the present manuscript adds no independent empirical dataset; the most substantive results are referenced rather than demonstrated. For a journal readership, the paper needs at least one self-contained validation (with data, code, and statistical analysis) of a model prediction, rather than relying on the reader to consult the cited prior work.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2] The text says the Crank–Nicolson method is used, but then states that spatial and temporal derivatives are approximated 'using Euler's method'. These two statements are inconsistent; the numerical discretization should be described accurately.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption contains two items labelled '(c)': the first describes classical binary switching and the second describes an electron in a parabolic well. The second should be labelled (d).
  3. [§4.3, Figure 9] The caption describes bottom x and left y axes for magnetisation and top x and right y axes for the cumulative probability distribution; this is confusing. A clearer multi-panel layout or a legend would help.
  4. [References and URLs] Reference [84] has a malformed URL ('http://http://www.neckerworld.org/'); reference [119] lacks a year. Please correct these bibliographic details.
  5. [§5.2, Figure 11] The supermarket self-checkout example is anecdotal: no image set, sample size, or accuracy data are given. If this is intended as evidence of real-world uncertainty, it should be either quantified or clearly presented as an illustration.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Polarization 'predictions' are post-hoc fits under a self-cited belief-to-well ansatz; QT-NN superiority rests on self-citations and a mixed benchmark.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 4.2, Opinion polarisation in social networks (first paragraph)]
    "Building upon this foundational property and following previous works [18, 29], it has been proposed that human belief systems can be effectively modelled as discrete energy levels of a quantum system [27]."

    The entire polarization model rests on the identification of an individual with a rectangular potential well and beliefs with discrete energy levels En ∝ (n/L)^2. This mapping is not derived from any cognitive or behavioural principle; it is imported by citation to the author's own prior work [27], which itself adopts the mapping by proposal. The paper then uses results obtained under this stipulation as evidence for the model, so the support reduces to the self-cited ansatz.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, final paragraph (discussion of one-sided vs double-sided polarisation)]
    "However, since the quantum model can reproduce both symmetrical and asymmetrical responses, it offers a promising avenue to infer missing polarisation trends [27]."

    The model can 'reproduce both symmetrical and asymmetrical responses' only because the well geometry, width L, and barrier shape are free parameters; the paper earlier states that 'the model allows for controlled manipulation of opposing viewpoints by altering the geometry of a single potential well.' A model that can fit either outcome by tuning its geometry cannot, without fixed parameters and out-of-sample tests, 'infer missing polarisation trends.' This is post-hoc fitting renamed as inference/prediction.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 6, Quantum-cognitive AI for drone warfare (paragraph beginning 'Subsequent investigations')]
    "Subsequent investigations will also involve further calibration of the model output using human-produced experimental data. In the QT model, the hyperparameters include the width and height of the potential barrier, which control the structure of the discrete quantum energy levels (see Figure 6 and Refs. [136,137]). Since these energy levels have been linked to human mental states [27], theoretical progress can be made by adjusting the quantum behaviour of the model to more closely align with human cognitive and emotional responses."

    This passage explicitly ties energy levels to mental states by citing [27], the same prior work that introduced the belief-to-well ansatz, and says future 'calibration' will adjust barrier width/height to human data. The claimed correspondence between quantum levels and human cognition is therefore not an independent result; it is an adjustable fitting parameter justified by a self-citation. The paper's own caveat in the same section—'further human trials are required for definitive validation'—confirms that no external validation yet exists.

full rationale

The paper is a broad survey of quantum-inspired cognition models, and much of the physics background (Schrödinger equation, double-slit, harmonic oscillator) is standard and not circular. However, the central predictive claims reduce to the author's own prior constructions. In Section 4.2 the belief-to-potential-well mapping is imported by citation to [27] without derivation, and the same section then says the model 'can reproduce both symmetrical and asymmetrical responses' and uses this to 'infer missing polarisation trends'—a post-hoc fit, since well geometry and L are free parameters. In Section 6 the author explicitly says future work will calibrate barrier width/height to human data and that energy levels 'have been linked to human mental states [27]', making the model's output dependent on the same self-cited link. The only quantitative benchmark (Section 5.2) shows QT-NN worse on 'Ankle Boot' (92.4% vs 100%) yet concludes 'superior overall performance' based on faster training cited to [136] and on interpretability, without a defined superiority criterion. These are load-bearing self-citations and fit-to-data moves, not external validation. Score 8 reflects that the polarization 'prediction' is forced by the tunable ansatz and the supporting evidence chain is dominated by self-citations; the Schrödinger-equation computations themselves are internally consistent and not logically identical to their inputs, so score 10 would be too severe.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The models rely on ad hoc mappings between quantum mechanics and cognition. Key parameters (barrier height, well geometry, time scales, magnetisation coefficients) are tuned to reproduce observed behavior, and the conceptual entities (mental wave function, potential-well beliefs) lack independent empirical verification.

free parameters (5)
  • Potential barrier height (double-slit and oscillator model) = not specified (tunable)
    Used to simulate different scenarios and match switching behaviour in Necker cube model (Sec 3.2, 4.1).
  • Potential well geometry and width L = chosen per scenario
    Rectangular vs parabolic vs irregular wells used to represent belief systems (Sec 4.2).
  • Time scale in oscillator model = not specified
    The paper acknowledges timescales differ and can be modified by changing the potential profile (Sec 4.1).
  • Magnetisation model parameters (damping, fields, etc.) = not specified
    Used to fit stick propensity in Deal or No Deal (Sec 4.3).
  • QT-NN hyperparameters: barrier width and height = not specified
    Control discrete energy levels linked to mental states (Sec 6).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Schrödinger equation with appropriate potentials governs human cognitive states
    Central to all models; the paper posits a mental wave function and states that the mind can interfere with itself (Sec 3.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Discrete energy levels of a potential well correspond to discrete belief states
    Section 4.2 states 'Let us assume that a single rectangular potential well represents one individual...' without independent justification.
  • ad hoc to paper Probabilities from wave function in spatial regions correspond to probabilities of perceiving |0⟩ or |1⟩ states
    Sec 4.1: 'The probabilities of finding the electron in each of these regions were calculated and interpreted as the probabilities of perceiving the Necker cube...'
  • domain assumption Quantum Darwinism explains why classical models sometimes suffice but quantum models are needed for full behaviour
    Used in Sec 2 to justify the quantum approach, but the connection is illustrative, not deductive.
invented entities (3)
  • Mental wave function
    purpose: To model an individual's behaviour as a quantum wave packet interfering with itself
    Introduced in Section 3.2 as an interpretive construction; no empirical handle independent of the model's own predictions.
  • Quantum-tunnelling activation function independent evidence
    purpose: To replace deterministic activation in neural networks with probabilistic tunnelling transitions
    The QT-NN's performance on Fashion MNIST and military datasets provides a falsifiable benchmark, though the entity itself is an algorithmic device, not a physical object.
  • Potential well representation of a social network
    purpose: To map individuals and their interactions into quantum potential landscapes
    Section 4.2 uses this mapping to generate energy bands, but the correspondence to real social dynamics is asserted, not measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cognition in Superposition: Quantum Models in AI, Finance, Defence, Gaming and Collective Behaviour." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PITREODA

@misc{pith2026250820098,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cognition in Superposition: Quantum Models in AI, Finance, Defence, Gaming and Collective Behaviour},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PITREODA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20098}
}
read the original abstract

At first glance, quantum mechanics and behavioural science seem worlds apart -- one rooted in equations and particles, the other in thoughts and choices. Yet, emerging research reveals a profound and unexpected bridge between them. This chapter explores that bridge through quantum models of cognition and decision-making, showing how principles from quantum mechanics can help understand, and even predict, the complexities of human perception, behaviour and societal dynamics. We introduce a computationally accessible framework grounded in quantum theory, designed to model ambiguity, bias and choice in a way that classical logic cannot. Drawing on interdisciplinary sources, we demonstrate how this approach not only enriches our understanding of individual cognition but also extends to AI, video game design, financial behaviour and collective decision-making in society. Through vivid case studies -- from optical illusions in video games to decision biases in economic, defence and political contexts -- we show how quantum models offer new explanatory and predictive power. Thus, this chapter invites readers from all professional backgrounds to reimagine cognition and decision-making, opening new avenues for science, technology and human understanding.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, Group Decision Making and Beyond 2. Distorted Polarization and Vulnerability

    physics.soc-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    In a zero-temperature Ising-like model of opinion dynamics, a single well-placed local field, or two opposed fields at the right sites, can override the random spontaneous consensus and force a predetermined majority.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

192 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Kragh, Max Planck: The reluctant revolutionary

    H. Kragh, Max Planck: The reluctant revolutionary. Physics World (2000). URL https://physicsworld.com/a/max-planck-the-reluctant-revolutionary/

    2000

  2. [2]

    Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2004)

    D.J. Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2004)

    2004

  3. [3]

    Bertlmann, N

    R. Bertlmann, N. Friis, Modern Quantum Theory (Oxford University Press, 2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Busemeyer, P.D

    J.R. Busemeyer, P.D. Bruza, Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision (Oxford University Press, New York, 2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    Mindell, Quantum Mind: The Edge Between Physics and Psychology (Deep Democracy Exchange, 2012)

    A. Mindell, Quantum Mind: The Edge Between Physics and Psychology (Deep Democracy Exchange, 2012)

    2012

  6. [6]

    Wendt, Quantum Mind and Social Science (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    A. Wendt, Quantum Mind and Social Science (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    Pothos, J.R

    E.M. Pothos, J.R. Busemeyer, Quantum cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 73, 749– 778 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Georgiev, Quantum Information and Consciousness (CRC Press, Boca Ra- ton, 2019)

    D.D. Georgiev, Quantum Information and Consciousness (CRC Press, Boca Ra- ton, 2019)

    2019

Show all 192 references
  1. [9]

    Khrennikov, Open Quantum Systems in Biology, Cognitive and Social Sci- ences (Springer, Cham, 2023)

    A.Y. Khrennikov, Open Quantum Systems in Biology, Cognitive and Social Sci- ences (Springer, Cham, 2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Yamamoto, M

    S. Yamamoto, M. Yamamoto, Effects of the gravitational vertical on the visual perception of reversible figures. Neurosci. Res. 55, 218–121 (2006) Cognition in Superposition 31

    2006

  3. [11]

    Cl´ ement, A

    G. Cl´ ement, A. Skinner, C. Lathan, Distance and size perception in astronauts during long-duration spaceflight. Life 3, 524–537 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    Cl´ ement, H.C.M

    G. Cl´ ement, H.C.M. Allaway, M. Demel, A. Golemis, A.N. Kindrat, A.N. Melinyshyn, T. Merali, R. Thirsk, Long-duration spaceflight increases depth ambiguity of reversible perspective figures. PLOS ONE 10 (2015). https: //doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132317

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    Atmanspacher, T

    H. Atmanspacher, T. Filk, H. R¨ omer, Quantum Zeno features of bistable percep- tion. Biol. Cybern. 90, 33–40 (2004)

    2004

  6. [14]

    interference of minds

    A. Khrennikov, Quantum-like brain: “interference of minds”. Biosystems 84, 225–241 (2006)

    2006

  7. [15]

    Atmanspacher, T

    H. Atmanspacher, T. Filk, A proposed test of temporal nonlocality in bistable perception. J. Math. Psychol. 54, 314–321 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Aerts, S

    D. Aerts, S. Sozzo, J. Tapia, Identifying quantum structures in the Ellsberg para- dox. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 53, 3666–3682 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Khrennikov, I

    A. Khrennikov, I. Basieva, E.M. Pothos, I. Yamato, Quantum probability in decision making from quantum information representation of neuronal states. Sci. Rep. 8, 16225 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Aerts, J.A

    D. Aerts, J.A. Argu¨ elles, Human perception as a phenomenon of quantization. Entropy 24, 1207 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Kovalenko, D

    T. Kovalenko, D. Sornette, The Conjunction Fallacy in Quantum Decision The- ory, in Credible Asset Allocation, Optimal Transport Methods, and Related Topics, ed. by S. Sriboonchitta, V. Kreinovich, W. Yamaka (Springer International Pub- lishing, Cham, 2022), pp. 127–183

    2022

  12. [20]

    Nielsen, I

    M. Nielsen, I. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Oxford University Press, New York, 2002)

    2002

  13. [21]

    Schr¨ odinger, Die gegenw¨ artige situation in der quantenmechanik

    E. Schr¨ odinger, Die gegenw¨ artige situation in der quantenmechanik. Naturwis- senschaften 23, 807–812 (1935). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01491891

    1935 doi

  14. [22]

    Schilpp, Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (The Library of Living Philosophers, Inc., Evanston, 1949)

    P.A. Schilpp, Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (The Library of Living Philosophers, Inc., Evanston, 1949)

    1949

  15. [23]

    Patry, Methodological consequences of situation specificity: biases in assess- ments

    J.L. Patry, Methodological consequences of situation specificity: biases in assess- ments. Front. Psychol. 2, 18 (2011). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011. 00018

    2011 doi

  16. [24]

    Fleeson, J

    W. Fleeson, J. Wilt, The relevance of big five trait content in behavior to subjec- tive authenticity: do high levels of within-person behavioral variability undermine or enable authenticity achievement? J. Pers. 78, 1353–1382 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Ortega y Gasset, Obras Completas, Vol

    J. Ortega y Gasset, Obras Completas, Vol. I (Revista de Occidente, Madrid, 1966)

    1966

  18. [26]

    De Castro, On the quantum principles of cognitive learning

    A. De Castro, On the quantum principles of cognitive learning. Behav. Brain Sci. 36, 281–282 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Maksymov, G

    I.S. Maksymov, G. Pogrebna, Quantum-mechanical modelling of asymmetric opinion polarisation in social networks. Information 15(3), 170 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Maksymov, G

    I.S. Maksymov, G. Pogrebna, The physics of preference: unravelling imprecision of human preferences through magnetisation dynamics. Information 15(7), 413 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Aerts, L

    D. Aerts, L. Beltran, A Planck radiation and quantization scheme for human cognition and language. Front. Psychol. 13 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2022.850725

    2022

  22. [30]

    Dittrich, ’the concept of information in physics’: an interdisciplinary topical lecture

    T. Dittrich, ’the concept of information in physics’: an interdisciplinary topical lecture. Eur. J. Phys. 36, 015010 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (Courier Dover Publications, New York, 1997)

    F. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (Courier Dover Publications, New York, 1997). Originally published 1886; translated by Helen Zimmern, 1906 32 Ivan S. Maksymov

    1997

  24. [32]

    Galam, Sociophysics: a personal testimony

    S. Galam, Sociophysics: a personal testimony. Phys. A 336, 49–55 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    Galam, Sociophysics: A Physicist’s Modeling of Psycho-political Phenomena (Springer New York, 2012)

    S. Galam, Sociophysics: A Physicist’s Modeling of Psycho-political Phenomena (Springer New York, 2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    Kornmeier, M

    J. Kornmeier, M. Bach, The Necker cube–an ambiguous figure disambiguated in early visual processing. Vision Res. 45, 955–960 (2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    Benedek, G

    G. Benedek, G. Caglioti, Graphics and Quantum Mechanics–The Necker Cube as a Quantum-like Two-Level System , in Proceedings of the 18th International Con- ference on Geometry and Graphics, ed. by L. Cocchiarella (Springer International Publishing, 2019), pp. 161–172

    2019

  28. [36]

    Maksymov, Quantum-inspired neural network model of optical illusions

    I.S. Maksymov, Quantum-inspired neural network model of optical illusions. Al- gorithms 17, 30 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Maksymov, Quantum-tunneling deep neural network for optical illusion recog- nition

    I.S. Maksymov, Quantum-tunneling deep neural network for optical illusion recog- nition. APL Mach. Learn. 2(3), 036107 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1063/5. 0225771

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Yukalov, D

    V.I. Yukalov, D. Sornette, Entanglement production in quantum decision making. Phys. At. Nucl. 73, 559–562 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Aerts, S

    D. Aerts, S. Sozzo, J. Tapia, A Quantum Model for the Ellsberg and Machina Para- doxes, in Quantum Interaction, ed. by J.R. Busemeyer, F. Dubois, A. Lambert- Mogiliansky, M. Melucci (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012), pp. 48–59

    2012

  32. [40]

    Martin, F

    F. Martin, F. Carminati, G.G. Carminati, Quantum information theory applied to unconscious and consciousness. NeuroQuantology 11, 16–33 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    Mart ´ ınez-Mart ´ ınez, E

    I. Mart ´ ınez-Mart ´ ınez, E. S´ anchez-Burillo, Quantum stochastic walks on networks for decision-making. Sci. Rep. 6, 23812 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    M. Wei, A. al Nowaihi, S. Dhami, Quantum decision theory, bounded rationality and the Ellsberg paradox. Stud. Microecon. 7, 110–139 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Surov, S.V

    I.A. Surov, S.V. Pilkevich, A.P. Alodjants, S.V. Khmelevsky, Quantum phase stability in human cognition. Front. Psychol. 10, 929 (2019). https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00929

    2019

  36. [44]

    Moreira, P

    C. Moreira, P. Tiwari, H.M. Pandey, P. Bruza, A. Wichert, Quantum-like influence diagrams for decision-making. Neural Netw. 132, 190–210 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Tesaˇ r, Quantum theory of international relations: Approaches and possible gains

    J. Tesaˇ r, Quantum theory of international relations: Approaches and possible gains. Human Affairs 25(4), 486–502 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Allan, Social action in quantum social science

    B.B. Allan, Social action in quantum social science. Millennium 47(1), 87–98 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Zurek, Quantum Darwinism

    W.H. Zurek, Quantum Darwinism. Nat. Phys. 5, 181–188 (2009)

    2009

  40. [48]

    Zurek, Classical selection and quantum Darwinism

    W.H. Zurek, Classical selection and quantum Darwinism. Phys. Today 68(5), 9–10 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Surov, E

    I.A. Surov, E. Semenenko, A.V. Platonov, I.A. Bessmertny, F. Galofaro, Z. Tof- fano, A.Y. Khrennikov, A.P. Alodjants, Quantum semantics of text perception. Sci. Rep. 11, 4193 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Surma, Deep learning in military applications

    J. Surma, Deep learning in military applications. Safety & Defense 10(1), 1–7 (2024). https://doi.org/10.37105/sd.214

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Walker, Physics, 5th edn

    J.S. Walker, Physics, 5th edn. (Pearson, London, 2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Smith, Quantum Physics For Beginners (Amazon Publishing, Seattle, 2020)

    R. Smith, Quantum Physics For Beginners (Amazon Publishing, Seattle, 2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Thomas, Numerical Partial Differential Equations: Finite Difference Meth- ods, Texts in Applied Mathematics , vol

    J.W. Thomas, Numerical Partial Differential Equations: Finite Difference Meth- ods, Texts in Applied Mathematics , vol. 22 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995)

    1995

  46. [54]

    Sullivan, Electromagnetic Simulations Using the FDTD Method (IEEE Press, New York, 2000) Cognition in Superposition 33

    D.M. Sullivan, Electromagnetic Simulations Using the FDTD Method (IEEE Press, New York, 2000) Cognition in Superposition 33

    2000

  47. [55]

    Bompas, A.E

    A. Bompas, A.E. Campbell, P. Sumner, Cognitive control and automatic inter- ference in mind and brain: A unified model of saccadic inhibition and counter- manding. Psych. Rev. 127(4), 524–561 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Qureshi, R.L

    A.W. Qureshi, R.L. Monk, D. Samson, I.A. Apperly, Does interference between self and other perspectives in theory of mind tasks reflect a common underlying process? evidence from individual differences in theory of mind and inhibitory control. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 27(1), 178–190 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Dicker, Descartes: An Analytical and Historical Introduction (Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford, 1993)

    G. Dicker, Descartes: An Analytical and Historical Introduction (Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford, 1993)

    1993

  50. [58]

    Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factor- ing, in Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (1994), pp

    P.W. Shor, Algorithms for quantum computation: discrete logarithms and factor- ing, in Proceedings 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (1994), pp. 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1994.365700

    1994

  51. [59]

    Menneer, A

    T. Menneer, A. Narayanan, Quantum-inspired neural networks. Technical Report 329, Department of Computer Science, University of Exeter (1995)

    1995

  52. [60]

    Narayanan, T

    A. Narayanan, T. Menneer, Quantum artificial neural network architectures and components. Inf. Sci. 128(3), 231–255 (2000)

    2000

  53. [61]

    Ezhov, D

    A.A. Ezhov, D. Ventura, in Future Directions for Intelligent Systems and Infor- mation Sciences, ed. by N. Kasabov (Physica-Verlag HD, Heidelberg, Germany, 2000), pp. 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-1856-7_11 . URL https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-79...

    doi

  54. [62]

    Everett, The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics: The theory of the universal wave function

    H. Everett, The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics: The theory of the universal wave function. Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University (1956)

    1956

  55. [63]

    relative state

    H. Everett, “relative state” formulation of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454–462 (1957). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454

    1957 doi

  56. [64]

    relative state

    J.A. Wheeler, Assessment of Everett’s “relative state” formulation of quan- tum theory. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 463–465 (1957). https://doi.org/10.1103/ RevModPhys.29.463

    1957

  57. [65]

    Vaidman, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , ed

    L. Vaidman, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , ed. by E.N. Zalta, Fall 2021 edn. (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    Necker, Observations on some remarkable optical phenomena seen in Switzer- land; and on an optical phenomenon which occurs on viewing a figure of a crystal or geometrical solid

    L.A. Necker, Observations on some remarkable optical phenomena seen in Switzer- land; and on an optical phenomenon which occurs on viewing a figure of a crystal or geometrical solid. Lond. Edinb. Philos. Mag. J. Sci. 1, 329–337 (1832)

  59. [67]

    Washburn, C

    M. Washburn, C. Reagan, E. Thurston, The comparative controllability of the fluctuations of simple and complex ambiguous perspective figures. Am. J. Psychol. 46, 636–638 (1934)

    1934

  60. [68]

    Shapiro, D

    A.G. Shapiro, D. Todorovi´ c,The Oxford Compendium of Visual Illusions (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    Fisher, Ambiguous figure treatments in the art of Salvador Dali

    G.H. Fisher, Ambiguous figure treatments in the art of Salvador Dali. Percept. Psychophys. 2, 328–330 (1967)

    1967

  62. [70]

    Lindstrøm, S

    T.C. Lindstrøm, S. Kristoffersen, ‘Figure it out!’ psychological perspectives on perception of migration period animal art. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 34, 65–84 (2001)

    2001

  63. [71]

    Parkkonen, J

    L. Parkkonen, J. Andersson, M. H¨ am¨ al¨ ainen, R. Hari, Early visual brain areas reflect the percept of an ambiguous scene. PNAS 105(51), 20500–20504 (2008)

    2008

  64. [72]

    Khalil, Why does Rubin’s vase differ radically from optical illusions? Framing effects contra cognitive illusions

    E.L. Khalil, Why does Rubin’s vase differ radically from optical illusions? Framing effects contra cognitive illusions. Front. Psychol. 12, 597758 (2021)

    2021

  65. [73]

    Nicholls, O

    M.E.R. Nicholls, O. Churches, T. Loetscher, Perception of an ambiguous figure is affected by own-age social biases. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 12661 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    McManus, M

    I.C. McManus, M. Freegard, J. Moore, R. Rawles, Science in the making: Right Hand, left Hand. II: The duck-rabbit figure. Laterality 15(1-2), 166–185 (2010)

    2010

  67. [75]

    Troje, M

    N.F. Troje, M. McAdam, The viewing-from-above bias and the silhouette illusion. i-Perception 1(3), 143–148 (2010) 34 Ivan S. Maksymov

    2010

  68. [76]

    Long, T.C

    G.M. Long, T.C. Toppino, Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: alternating views of reversible figures. Psychol. Bull. 130, 748–768 (2004)

    2004

  69. [77]

    Stonkute, J

    S. Stonkute, J. Braun, A. Pastukhov, The role of attention in ambiguous reversals of structure-from-motion. PLoS ONE 7, e37734 (2012)

    2012

  70. [78]

    Meilikhov, R.M

    E.Z. Meilikhov, R.M. Farzetdinova, Bistable perception of ambiguous images: simple Arrhenius model. Cogn. Neurodyn. 13, 613–621 (2019)

    2019

  71. [79]

    Basar-Eroglu, B

    C. Basar-Eroglu, B. Mathes, K. Khalaidovski, A. Brand, C. Schmiedt-Fehr, Al- tered alpha brain oscillations during multistable perception in schizophrenia. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 103, 118–128 (2016)

    2016

  72. [80]

    Takeno, Creation of a Conscious Robot: Mirror Image Cognition and Self- Awareness (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2013)

    J. Takeno, Creation of a Conscious Robot: Mirror Image Cognition and Self- Awareness (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2013)

    2013

  73. [81]

    Matsumoto, H

    D. Matsumoto, H. Xu, J. Takeno, Simulation of the cognitive process in looking at Rubin’s vase. Procedia Comput. Sci. 123, 265–270 (2018)

    2018

  74. [82]

    Wang, C.H

    P.Y. Wang, C.H. Xu, P.Y. Wang, H.Y. Huang, Y.W. Chang, J.H. Cheng, Y.H. Lin, L.P. Cheng, Game Illusionization: A Workflow for Applying Optical Illusions to Video Games, in The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (2021), pp. 1326–1344

    2021

  75. [83]

    R.W. Li, C.V. Ngo, D.M. Levi, Relieving the attentional blink in the amblyopic brain with video games. Sci. Reps. 5, 8483 (2015)

    2015

  76. [84]

    Magnuski

    H. Magnuski. Neckerworld–a computer vision game. https://http://www. neckerworld.org/ (2023). Accessed on November 01, 2024

    2023

  77. [85]

    Superliminal

    Pillow Castle Games. Superliminal. https://store.steampowered.com/app/ 1049410/Superliminal/ (2019). Accessed on November 01, 2024

    2019

  78. [86]

    C´ espedes, V.H

    P. C´ espedes, V.H. Cisternas. Necker. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/ 203106/necker (2010). Accessed on November 01, 2024

    2010

  79. [87]

    Inoue, K

    M. Inoue, K. Nakamoto, Dynamics of cognitive interpretations of a Necker cube in a chaos neural network. Prog. Theor. Phys. 92, 501–508 (1994)

    1994

  80. [88]

    Ward, B.J

    E.J. Ward, B.J. Scholl, Stochastic or systematic? seemingly random perceptual switching in bistable events triggered by transient unconscious cues. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 41(4), 929–939 (2015)

    2015

  81. [89]

    C. Lo, I. Dinov, Investigation of optical illusions on the aspects of gender and age. UCLA USJ 24 (2011)

    2011

  82. [90]

    X. Wang, N. Sang, L. Hao, Y. Zhang, T. Bi, J. Qiu, Category selectivity of human visual cortex in perception of Rubin face–vase illusion. Front. Psychol. 8 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01543

    2017

  83. [91]

    Piantoni, N

    G. Piantoni, N. Romeijn, G. Gomez-Herrero, Y.D. Van Der Werf, E.J.W. Van Someren, Alpha power predicts persistence of bistable perception. Sci. Rep. 7, 5208 (2017)

    2017

  84. [92]

    E. Joos, A. Giersch, L. Hecker, J. Schipp, S.P. Heinrich, L.T. van Elst, J. Korn- meier, Large EEG amplitude effects are highly similar across Necker cube, smiley, and abstract stimuli. PLoS ONE 15, e0232928 (2020)

    2020

  85. [93]

    Einh¨ auser, K.A.C

    W. Einh¨ auser, K.A.C. Martin, P. K¨ onig, Are switches in perception of the Necker cube related to eye position? Eur. J. Neurosci. 20, 2811–2818 (2004)

    2004

  86. [94]

    Ang, G.W

    J.W.A. Ang, G.W. Maus, Boosted visual performance after eye blinks. J. Vis. 20 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.20.10.2

    2020 doi

  87. [95]

    W. Choi, H. Lee, S.B. Paik. Slow rhythmic eye motion predicts periodic alterna- tion of bistable perception. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.18. 303198 (2020)

    2020 doi

  88. [96]

    Matsumiya, S

    K. Matsumiya, S. Furukawa, Perceptual decisions interfere more with eye move- ments than with reach movements. Commun. Biol. 6, 882 (2023) Cognition in Superposition 35

    2023

  89. [97]

    Wilson, L

    M. Wilson, L. Hecker, E. Joos, A. Aertsen, L.T. van Elst, J. Kornmeier, Spon- taneous Necker-cube reversals are not that spontaneous. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 17, 1179081 (2023)

    2023

  90. [98]

    Shimaoka, K

    D. Shimaoka, K. Kitajo, K. Kaneko, Y. Yamaguchi, Transient process of cortical activity during Necker cube perception: from local clusters to global synchrony. Nonlinear Biomed. Phys. 4, S7 (2010)

    2010

  91. [99]

    R. Chen, Y. Xiong, S. Zhuge, Z. Li, Q. Chen, Z. He, D. Wu, F. Hou, J. Zhou, Regulation and prediction of multistable perception alternation. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 172, 113564 (2023)

    2023

  92. [100]

    McKenna, T.A

    T.M. McKenna, T.A. McMullen, M.F. Shlesinger, The brain as a dynamic physical system. Neuroscience 60(3), 587–605 (1994)

    1994

  93. [101]

    H. Korn, P. Faure, Is there chaos in the brain? II. Experimental evidence and related models. C. R. Biol. 326(9), 787–840 (2003)

    2003

  94. [102]

    Symul, S.M

    T. Symul, S.M. Assad, P.K. Lam, Real time demonstration of high bitrate quan- tum random number generation with coherent laser light. Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 231103 (2011)

    2011

  95. [103]

    Kumari, G

    K. Kumari, G. Rajpoot, S. Joshi, S.R. Jain, Qubit control using quantum Zeno effect: Action principle approach. Ann. Phys. 450, 169222 (2023)

    2023

  96. [104]

    Wallis, S

    G. Wallis, S. Ringelhan, The dynamics of perceptual rivalry in bistable and tristable perception. J. Vis. 13(2), 24 (2013)

    2013

  97. [105]

    Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1971)

    C. Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1971)

    1971

  98. [106]

    Acemoglu, G

    D. Acemoglu, G. Como, F. Fagnani, A. Ozdaglar, Opinion fluctuations and dis- agreement in social networks. Math. Oper. Res. 38(1), 1–27 (2013)

    2013

  99. [107]

    Swire-Thompson, J

    B. Swire-Thompson, J. DeGutis, D. Lazer, Searching for the backfire effect: Mea- surement and design considerations. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 9(3), 286–299 (2020)

    2020

  100. [108]

    X. Chen, P. Tsaparas, J. Lijffijt, T.D. Bie, Opinion dynamics with backfire effect and biased assimilation. PLoS ONE 16, e0256922 (2021)

    2021

  101. [109]

    Bail, L.P

    C.A. Bail, L.P. Argyle, T.W. Brown, J.P. Bumpus, H. Chen, M.B.F. Hunzaker, J. Lee, M. Mann, F. Merhout, A. Volfovsky, Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. PNAS 115, 9216–9221 (2018)

    2018

  102. [110]

    Nyhan, J

    B. Nyhan, J. Reifler, Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine 33(3), 459–464 (2015)

    2015

  103. [111]

    Dixon, O

    G. Dixon, O. Bullock, D. Adams, Unintended effects of emphasizing the role of climate change in recent natural disasters. Environ. Commun. 13(2), 135–143 (2019)

    2019

  104. [112]

    Liebertz, J

    S. Liebertz, J. Bunch, Backfiring frames: abortion politics, religion, and attitude resistance. Politics Relig. 14(3), 403–430 (2021)

    2021

  105. [113]

    Galam, Heterogeneous beliefs, segregation, and extremism in the making of public opinions

    S. Galam, Heterogeneous beliefs, segregation, and extremism in the making of public opinions. Phys. Rev. E 71, 046123 (2005)

    2005

  106. [114]

    Castellano, S

    C. Castellano, S. Fortunato, V. Loreto, Statistical physics of social dynamics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 591–646 (2009)

    2009

  107. [115]

    Hu, Competing opinion diffusion on social networks

    H. Hu, Competing opinion diffusion on social networks. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4, 171160 (2017)

    2017

  108. [116]

    Redner, Reality-inspired voter models: A mini-review

    S. Redner, Reality-inspired voter models: A mini-review. C. R. Phys. 20, 275–292 (2019)

    2019

  109. [117]

    Galam, R.R.W

    S. Galam, R.R.W. Brooks, Radicalism: The asymmetric stances of radicals versus conventionals. Phys. Rev. E 105, 044112 (2022) 36 Ivan S. Maksymov

    2022

  110. [118]

    Interian, F.A

    R. Interian, F.A. Rodrigues, Group polarization, influence, and domination in online interaction networks: a case study of the 2022 Brazilian elections. J. Phys. Complex. 4, 035008 (2023)

    2022

  111. [119]

    Sznajd-Weron, J

    K. Sznajd-Weron, J. Sznajd, Opinion evolution in closed community. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 11, 1157–1165

  112. [120]

    Galam, Rational group decision making: A random field Ising model at T = 0

    S. Galam, Rational group decision making: A random field Ising model at T = 0. Phys. A 238, 66–80 (1997)

    1997

  113. [121]

    Z¨ ollner, Ueber eine neue art von pseudoskopie und ihre beziehungen zu den von plateau und oppel beschrieben bewegungsphaenomenen

    F. Z¨ ollner, Ueber eine neue art von pseudoskopie und ihre beziehungen zu den von plateau und oppel beschrieben bewegungsphaenomenen. Annalen der Physik 186, 500–525 (1860)

  114. [122]

    J.D. Hey, C. Orme, Investigating generalizations of expected utility theory using experimental data. Econometrica pp. 1291–1326 (1994)

    1994

  115. [123]

    Blavatskyy, G

    P. Blavatskyy, G. Pogrebna, Endowment effects? “Even” with half a million on the table! Theory Decis. 68, 173–192 (2010)

    2010

  116. [124]

    Blavatskyy, G

    P.R. Blavatskyy, G. Pogrebna, Models of stochastic choice and decision theories: Why both are important for analyzing decisions. J. Appl. Econom.25(6), 963–986 (2010)

    2010

  117. [125]

    Bailey, R

    K. Bailey, R. West, J. Kuffel, What would my avatar do? Gaming, pathology, and risky decision making. Front. Psychol. 4, 609 (2013)

    2013

  118. [126]

    Maksymov, G

    I.S. Maksymov, G. Pogrebna. Exploring cognitive paradoxes in video games: A quantum mechanical perspective (2025). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2307. 08758

    2025

  119. [127]

    Pogrebna, Na ¨ ıve advice when half a million is at stake

    G. Pogrebna, Na ¨ ıve advice when half a million is at stake. Econ. Lett. 98(2), 148–154 (2008)

    2008

  120. [128]

    Von Neumann, O

    J. Von Neumann, O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton University Press, 1944)

    1944

  121. [129]

    Tversky, D

    A. Tversky, D. Kahneman, Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representa- tion of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 5, 297–323 (1992). https://doi.org/10. 1007/BF00122574

    1992

  122. [130]

    Fechner, Elements of Psychophysics (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY, 1860)

    G.T. Fechner, Elements of Psychophysics (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, NY, 1860)

  123. [131]

    Luce, Individual Choice Behavior , vol

    R.D. Luce, Individual Choice Behavior , vol. 4 (Wiley New York, 1959)

    1959

  124. [132]

    Loomes, G

    G. Loomes, G. Pogrebna, Do preference reversals disappear when we allow for probabilistic choice? Manage. Sci. 63(1), 166–184 (2017)

    2017

  125. [133]

    Raiaan, M.S.H

    M.A.K. Raiaan, M.S.H. Mukta, K. Fatema, N.M. Fahad, S. Sakib, M.M.J. Mim, J. Ahmad, M.E. Ali, S. Azam, A review on large language models: Architectures, applications, taxonomies, open issues and challenges. IEEE Access 12, 26839– 26874 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.20...

    2024

  126. [134]

    Acharya, K

    D.B. Acharya, K. Kuppan, B. Divya, Agentic ai: Autonomous intelligence for complex goals—A comprehensive survey. IEEE Access 13, 18912–18936 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3532853

    2025

  127. [135]

    Busemeyer, P

    J.R. Busemeyer, P. Fakhari, P. Kvam, Neural implementation of operations used in quantum cognition. Prog. Biophys. Mol. 130, 53–60 (2017)

    2017

  128. [136]

    Maksimovic, I.S

    M. Maksimovic, I.S. Maksymov, Quantum-cognitive neural networks: Assessing confidence and uncertainty with human decision-making simulations. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 9(1), 12 (2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc9010012

    2025 doi

  129. [137]

    Maksimovic, I.S

    M. Maksimovic, I.S. Maksymov, Transforming neural networks into quantum- cognitive models: A research tutorial with novel applications. Technologies 13(5), 183 (2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies13050183

    2025 doi

  130. [138]

    Georgiev, J.F

    D.D. Georgiev, J.F. Glazebrook, The quantum physics of synaptic communication via the SNARE protein complex. Prog. Biophys. Mol. 135, 16–29 (2018) Cognition in Superposition 37

    2018

  131. [139]

    Georgiev, Causal potency of consciousness in the physical world

    D.D. Georgiev, Causal potency of consciousness in the physical world. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 38(19), 2450256 (2024)

    2024

  132. [140]

    Chitambar, G

    E. Chitambar, G. Gour, Quantum resource theories. Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  133. [141]

    Carbon, Understanding human perception by human-made illusions

    C.C. Carbon, Understanding human perception by human-made illusions. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00566

    2014

  134. [142]

    Baker, G

    N. Baker, G. Erlikhman, P. Kellman, H. Lu, Deep convolutional networks do not perceive illusory contours. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 40, 1310–1315 (2018)

    2018

  135. [143]

    Gomez-Villa, A

    A. Gomez-Villa, A. Mart ´ ın, J. Vazquez-Corral, M. Bertalm ´ ıo, J. Malo, Color illusions also deceive CNNs for low-level vision tasks: Analysis and implications. Vis. Res. 176, 156–174 (2020)

    2020

  136. [144]

    B. Kim, E. Reif, M. Wattenberg, S. Bengio, M.C. Mozer, Neural networks trained on natural scenes exhibit gestalt closure. Comput. Brain Behav.4, 251–263 (2021)

    2021

  137. [145]

    Glorot, A

    X. Glorot, A. Bordes, Y. Bengio, Deep Sparse Rectifier Neural Networks , in Pro- ceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 15, ed. by G. Gordon, D. Dunson, M. Dud ´ ık (Fort Lau...

    2011

  138. [146]

    G.S. Bhumbra. Deep learning improved by biological activation functions (2018). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.11237

    2018 arXiv

  139. [147]

    Jones, K.P

    I.S. Jones, K.P. Kording, Might a single neuron solve interesting machine learning problems through successive computations on its dendritic tree? Neural Comput. 33(6), 1554–1571 (2021)

    2021

  140. [148]

    Watanabe, A

    E. Watanabe, A. Kitaoka, K. Sakamoto, M. Yasugi, K. Tanaka, Illusory motion reproduced by deep neural networks trained for prediction. Front. Psychol. 9 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00345

    2018

  141. [149]

    M´ ely, D

    D.A. M´ ely, D. Linsley, T. Serre, Complementary surrounds explain diverse con- textual phenomena across visual modalities. Psychol. Rev. 125, 769–784 (2018)

    2018

  142. [150]

    Kubota, A

    Y. Kubota, A. Hiyama, M. Inami, A Machine Learning Model Perceiving Bright- ness Optical Illusions: Quantitative Evaluation with Psychophysical Data , in Pro- ceedings of the Augmented Humans International Conference 2021 (2021), pp. 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1145/3458709.3458952

    2021

  143. [151]

    Shahgir, K.S

    H.S. Shahgir, K.S. Sayeed, A. Bhattacharjee, W.U. Ahmad, Y. Dong, R. Shahri- yar, IllusionVQA: A Challenging Optical Illusion Dataset for Vision Language Models, in First Conference on Language Modeling (2024). URL https:// openreview.net/forum?id=7ysaJGs7zY

    2024

  144. [152]

    Paxton, D

    A.B. Paxton, D. Smith, Visual cues from an underwater illusion increase relative abundance of highly reef-associated fish on an artificial reef. Mar. Freshwater Res. 69, 614–619 (2018)

    2018

  145. [153]

    Agrillo, M

    C. Agrillo, M. Santac` a, A. Pecunioso, M.E.M. Petrazzini, Everything is subjective under water surface, too: visual illusions in fish. Anim. Cogn. 23, 251–264 (2020)

    2020

  146. [154]

    Y. Ni, Z. Du, S. Wang, F. Jiao, Rectification of Driver’s Visual Illusion on Continuous Downhill of Urban Underwater Tunnel , pp. 3692–3704. https: //doi.org/10.1061/9780784482933.318

    doi

  147. [155]

    Sniazhko, Uncertainty in decision-making: A review of the international busi- ness literature

    S. Sniazhko, Uncertainty in decision-making: A review of the international busi- ness literature. Cogent Bus. Manag. 6(1), 1650692 (2019). https://doi.org/10. 1080/23311975.2019.1650692

    2019

  148. [156]

    Y. Gu, S. Gu, Y. Lei, H. Li, From uncertainty to anxiety: How uncertainty fu- els anxiety in a process mediated by intolerance of uncertainty. Neural Plast. 38 Ivan S. Maksymov 2020(1), 8866386 (2020). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/ 8866386

    2020 doi

  149. [157]

    Strogatz, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos

    S.H. Strogatz, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos. With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering, Second Edition (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2015)

    2015

  150. [158]

    Lucero, P

    K.S. Lucero, P. Chen, What do reinforcement and confidence have to do with it? A systematic pathway analysis of knowledge, competence, confidence, and intention to change. J. Eur. CME. 9, 1834759 (2020). https://doi.org/10. 1080/21614083.2020.1834759

    2020

  151. [159]

    Johnson, J.M

    B. Johnson, J.M. Green, G. Burns, T. Collier, R. Cornish, K. Curley, A. Free- man, J. Spears, Mapping Artificial Intelligence to the Naval Tactical Kill Chain. Nav. Eng. J. 135-1, 155–167 (2023)

    2023

  152. [160]

    H¨ ullermeier, W

    E. H¨ ullermeier, W. Waegeman, Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: an introduction to concepts and methods. Mach. Learn. 110, 457–506 (2021)

    2021

  153. [161]

    Gawlikowski, C.R.N

    J. Gawlikowski, C.R.N. Tassi, M. Ali, J. Lee, M. Humt, J. Feng, A. Kruspe, R. Triebel, P. Jung, R. Roscher, M. Shahzad, W. Yang, R. Bamler, X.X. Zhu, A survey of uncertainty in deep neural networks. Artif. Intell. Rev. 56, 1513–1589 (2023)

    2023

  154. [162]

    R. Guha, D. Velegol, Harnessing Shannon entropy-based descriptors in machine learning models to enhance the prediction accuracy of molecular properties. J. Cheminform 15, 54 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13321-023-00712-0

    2023 doi

  155. [163]

    Wasilewski, T

    J. Wasilewski, T. Paterek, K. Horodecki, Uncertainty of feed forward neural net- works recognizing quantum contextuality. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 56, 455305 (2024)

    2024

  156. [164]

    Karaca, in Multi-Chaos, Fractal and Multi-Fractional Artificial Intelligence of Different Complex Systems , ed

    Y. Karaca, in Multi-Chaos, Fractal and Multi-Fractional Artificial Intelligence of Different Complex Systems , ed. by Y. Karaca, D. Baleanu, Y.D. Zhang, O. Ger- vasi, M. Moonis (Academic Press, 2022), pp. 21–54. https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90032-4.00016-X

    2022 doi

  157. [165]

    Bobadilla-Suarez, O

    S. Bobadilla-Suarez, O. Guest, B.C. Love, Subjective value and decision entropy are jointly encoded by aligned gradients across the human brain. Commun. Biol. 3, 597 (2020)

    2020

  158. [166]

    Franchi, A

    G. Franchi, A. Bursuc, E. Aldea, S. Dubuisson, I. Bloch, TRADI: Tracking Deep Neural Network Weight Distributions , in Computer Vision – ECCV 2020 , ed. by A. Vedaldi, H. Bischof, T. Brox, J.M. Frahm (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020), pp. 105–121

    2020

  159. [167]

    Erhan, Y

    D. Erhan, Y. Bengio, A. Courville, P.A. Manzagol, P. Vincent, S. Bengio, Why does unsupervised pre-training help deep learning? J. Mach. Learn. Res. 11, 625–660 (2010)

    2010

  160. [168]

    Jospin, H

    L.V. Jospin, H. Laga, F. Boussaid, W. Buntine, M. Bennamoun, Hands-on Bayesian neural networks–a tutorial for deep learning users. IEEE Comput. In- tell. Mag. 17(2), 29–48 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/MCI.2022.3155327

    2022

  161. [169]

    D.B. Wang, L. Feng, M.L. Zhang, Rethinking Calibration of Deep Neural Networks: Do Not Be Afraid of Overconfidence , in Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems , vol. 34, ed. by M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P. Liang, J.W. Vaughan (Curran Associates, Inc....

    2021

  162. [170]

    H. Wei, R. Xie, H. Cheng, L. Feng, B. An, Y. Li, Mitigating Neural Network Overconfidence with Logit Normalization, in Proceedings of the 39th International Cognition in Superposition 39 Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 162, ed. by...

    2022

  163. [171]

    Melotti, C

    G. Melotti, C. Premebida, J.J. Bird, D.R. Faria, N. Gon¸ calves, Reducing overcon- fidence predictions in autonomous driving perception. IEEE Access 10, 54805– 54821 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3175195

    2022

  164. [172]

    Bouteska, M

    A. Bouteska, M. Harasheh, M.Z. Abedin, Revisiting overconfidence in investment decision-making: Further evidence from the U. S. market. Res. Int. Bus. Fi- nance. 66, 102028 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ribaf.2023.102028

    2023

  165. [173]

    H. Xiao, K. Rasul, R. Vollgraf. Fashion-MNIST: A novel image dataset for benchmarking machine learning algorithms (2017). URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/1708.07747

    2017 arXiv

  166. [174]

    Maksimovic, A

    M. Maksimovic, A. Bohdanets, I. Motsi-Omoijiade, G. Governatori, I.S. Maksy- mov. Quantum-cognitive tunnelling neural networks for military-civilian vehicle classification and sentiment analysis (2025). URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2507. 18645

    2025

  167. [175]

    S. Humr, M. Canan, M. Demir, A quantum probability approach to improving human–AI decision making. Entropy 27(2), 152 (2025). https://doi.org/10. 3390/e27020152

    2025

  168. [176]

    S. Humr, M. Canan. System level intervention for AI-supported decision-making: A quantum cognition perspective (2025). https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ ka6py_v1

    2025 doi

  169. [177]

    G. Moy, S. Shek, M. Oxenham, S. Ellis-Steinborner, Recent advances in artificial intelligence and their impact on defence. Tech. Rep. DST- Group-TR-3716, Defence Science and Technology Group, Australia (2020). URL https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications...

    2020

  170. [178]

    Der Spiegel (2025)

    Der Spiegel, Ukraine-krieg: Deutsche waffensysteme of- fenbar nur bedingt kriegst¨ uchtig. Der Spiegel (2025). URL https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/ ukraine-krieg-deutsche-waffensysteme-offenbar-nur-bedingt-kriegstuechtig-a-6aaeafa2-6802-418d-b7ce-feb1c9193b67? sara_...

    2025

  171. [179]

    Heiming, Features of modern military logistic trucks

    G. Heiming, Features of modern military logistic trucks. European Security & Defence (2020). URL https://euro-sd.com/2020/09/articles/technology/ 18839/features-of-modern-military-logistic-trucks/ . Accessed: 2025-04- 14

    2020

  172. [180]

    Krizhevsky, Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images

    A. Krizhevsky, Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. Tech. rep., University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (2009). URL https://www.cs.toronto. edu/~kriz/learning-features-2009-TR.pdf

    2009

  173. [181]

    Schraagen (ed.), Responsible Use of AI in Military Systems

    J.M. Schraagen (ed.), Responsible Use of AI in Military Systems . Chapman and Hall/CRC Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Series (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2024). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003410379. Pp. 88, 97–98

    2024 doi

  174. [182]

    Sadek, E

    M. Sadek, E. Kallina, T. Bohn´ e, C. Mougenot, R.A. Calvo, S. Cave, Challenges of responsible ai in practice: scoping review and recommended actions. AI & Society 40, 199–215 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01880-9

    2025 doi

  175. [183]

    Surov, E.N

    I.A. Surov, E.N. Melnikova, Subjectness of intelligence: Quantum-theoretic anal- ysis and ethical perspective. Found. Sci. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10699-024-09947-y 40 Ivan S. Maksymov

    2024

  176. [184]

    https://reaim2024.kr/reaimeng/index.do (2024)

    Responsible AI in the Military domain (REAIM) Summit 2024: Blueprint for Action. https://reaim2024.kr/reaimeng/index.do (2024). September 9–10, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Accessed April 11, 2025

    2024

  177. [185]

    Rowe, The comparative ethics of artificial-intelligence methods for military applications

    N.C. Rowe, The comparative ethics of artificial-intelligence methods for military applications. Front. Big Data 5, 991759 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3389/ fdata.2022.991759. URL https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2022.991759

    2022

  178. [186]

    Surov, Quantum cognitive triad: Semantic geometry of context repre- sentation

    I.A. Surov, Quantum cognitive triad: Semantic geometry of context repre- sentation. Found. Sci. 26, 947–975 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10699-020-09712-x

    2021

  179. [187]

    Melnikova, I

    E. Melnikova, I. Surov, Legal status of artificial intelligence from quantum- theoretic perspective. BRICS Law Journal 10(4), 5–34 (2023). https://doi. org/10.21684/2412-2343-2023-10-4-5-34

    2023 doi

  180. [188]

    Schwartz, H.P

    J.M. Schwartz, H.P. Stapp, M. Beauregard, Quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology: a neurophysical model of mind–brain interaction. Phi- los. Trans. R. Soc. Lond.: B Biol. Sci. 360, 1309–1327 (2005)

    2005

  181. [189]

    Khrennikov, M

    A. Khrennikov, M. Asano, A quantum-like model of information processing in the brain. Appl. Sci. 10(2), 707 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10020707

    2020 doi

  182. [190]

    Markovi´ c, J

    D. Markovi´ c, J. Grollier, Quantum neuromorphic computing. Appl. Phys. Lett. 117(15), 150501 (2020)

    2020

  183. [191]

    Tacikowski, J

    P. Tacikowski, J. Fust, H.H. Ehrsson, Fluidity of gender identity induced by illu- sory body-sex change. Sci. Reps. 10, 14385 (2020)

    2020

  184. [192]

    Maksymov, Magnetism-inspired quantum-mechanical model of gender fluid- ity

    I.S. Maksymov, Magnetism-inspired quantum-mechanical model of gender fluid- ity. Psychol. J.: Res. Open pp. 1–7 (2024). https://doi.org/10.31038/PSYJ. 2024614

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.