ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Divergent patterns of probabilistic reasoning in humans and GPT-5.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Identifying Quantum Structure in AI Language: Evidence for Evolutionary Convergence of Human and Artificial Cognition.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT‑5 are increasingly consulted for advice across a wide range of domains, yet little is known about how their probability judgments compare to those of humans. This study examined GPT‑5's adherence to classical probability rules, focusing on conjunction fallacies, disjunction fallacies, and violations of binary complementarity. Using a large dataset on human probabilistic judgments, in which participants displayed multiple types of fallacies, we tested GPT‑5 on the same task and with matched participant profiles. GPT‑5 produced only single conjunction or disjunction fallacies and showed near‑perfect compliance with binary complementarity constraints. Its overall response pattern aligned with predictions of early quantum‑probabilistic models rather than more recent variants incorporating noise. These findings suggest that GPT‑5 implements a more coherent and internally consistent form of probabilistic reasoning compared to naïve human participants.
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.