ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2023
A Quantum-like Model of Interdependence for Embodied Human-Machine Teams: Reviewing the Path to Autonomy Facing Complexity and Uncertainty.
Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI-driven virtual cell models in preclinical research: technical pathways, validation mechanisms, and clinical translation potential.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- An Entropy Approach to Interdependent Human-Machine Teams.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this review, our goal is to design and test quantum-like algorithms for Artificial Intelligence (AI) in open systems to structure a human-machine team to be able to reach its maximum performance. Unlike the laboratory, in open systems, teams face complexity, uncertainty and conflict. All task domains have complexity levels-some low, and others high. Complexity in this new domain is affected by the environment and the task, which are both affected by uncertainty and conflict. We contrast individual and interdependence approaches to teams. The traditional and individual approach focuses on building teams and systems by aggregating the best available information for individuals, their thoughts, behaviors and skills. Its concepts are characterized chiefly by one-to-one relations between mind and body, a summation of disembodied individual mental and physical attributes, and degrees of freedom corresponding to the number of members in a team; however, this approach is characterized by the many researchers who have invested in it for almost a century with few results that can be generalized to human-machine interactions; by the replication crisis of today (e.g., the invalid scale for self-esteem); and by its many disembodied concepts. In contrast, our approach is based on the quantum-like nature of interdependence. It allows us theorization about the bistability of mind and body, but it poses a measurement problem and a non-factorable nature. Bistability addresses team structure and performance; the measurement problem solves the replication crisis; and the non-factorable aspect of teams reduces the degrees of freedom and the information derivable from teammates to match findings by the National Academies of Science. We review the science of teams and human-machine team research in the laboratory versus in the open field; justifications for rejecting traditional social science while supporting our approach; a fuller understanding of the complexity of teams and tasks; the mathematics involved; a review of results from our quantum-like model in the open field (e.g., tradeoffs between team structure and performance); and the path forward to advance the science of interdependence and autonomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.