Preprint defines baselines for assessing quantum-like behavior in AI models, suggesting implications for interpretations.
This preprint defines the classical candidate-geometry baselines that should be compared before any claim of non-classicality in the quantum-like contextual non-additivity, order effects, and Bell-type indicators reported for large language models (LLMs) and masked language models (MLMs), and quantifies their explanatory power and limits. It does not claim physical quantum coherence in AI, nor a full explanation of AI quantum-like behavior. The revised edition adds four components. (i) Detection-power certification: the detector's condition is ICC < S_odd - 2, and Tsirelson-level injection tests certify that genuine contextuality of that magnitude would be detectable at the empirical signaling levels; the 312 Experiment-4 tables all satisfy S_odd < 2 with zero corrected excess, so the negative result is not attributable to ICC-induced blindness. (ii) A product-distribution theorem establishing that the zero excess of independent scoring is a mathematical necessity, not an empirical finding. (iii) A structural reproduction of the Lo et al. construction with a no-model null: uniformly random marginals without any language model already reach a CbD-contextual rate of 0.667 (vs. 0.711 reported), and the real BERT/RoBERTa rates are largely indistinguishable from a marginal-matched sign-randomized null at substantive effect sizes. (iv) A multi-model audit across six models from four families: raw S_odd > 2 appears (max 2.773) but is entirely explained by direct influence, with zero corrected excess across all 144 tables and on the powered subset. The package includes the manuscript (LaTeX source and PDF), figures, reproduction code, and data (including the raw joint probabilities from which the per-table metrics are regenerated and cross-checked). Central thesis: reading AI quantum-like behavior as non-classicality requires exceeding not the raw score but the combination of classical candidate-geometry baselines, direct-influence correction, detector-power certification, and a no-model null. This work is neither a full reproduction nor a refutation of Lo et al.; it audits the interpretation of raw contextual-instance counts. Manuscript language: English. Code is released under the MIT License; text and figures under CC BY 4.0. Note: Parts of the manuscript were linguistically and structurally refined with the assistance of AI-based tools.All scientific content, analysis, and conclusions are the author's own.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
John(Atsushi Ogasawara) Hathway (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: