IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/acsxxx/v13y2010i05ns0219525910002803.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mathematical Structure Of Quantum Decision Theory

Author

Listed:
  • VYACHESLAV I. YUKALOV

    (Department of Management, Technology and Economics, ETH Zürich, Zürich CH-8032, Switzerland;
    Bogolubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna 141980, Russia)

  • DIDIER SORNETTE

    (Department of Management, Technology and Economics, ETH Zürich, Zürich CH-8032, Switzerland;
    Swiss Finance Institute, c/o University of Geneva, CH 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland)

Abstract

One of the most complex systems is the human brain whose formalized functioning is characterized by decision theory. We present a "Quantum Decision Theory" of decision-making, based on the mathematical theory of separable Hilbert spaces. This mathematical structure captures the effect of superposition of composite prospects, including many incorporated intentions, which allows us to explain a variety of interesting fallacies and anomalies that have been reported to particularize the decision-making of real human beings. The theory describes entangled decision-making, non-commutativity of subsequent decisions, and intention interference of composite prospects. We demonstrate how the violation of the Savage's sure-thing principle (disjunction effect) can be explained as a result of the interference of intentions, when making decisions under uncertainty. The conjunction fallacy is also explained by the presence of the interference terms. We demonstrate that all known anomalies and paradoxes, documented in the context of classical decision theory, are reducible to just a few mathematical archetypes, all of which allow the finding of straightforward explanations in the frame of the developed quantum approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Vyacheslav I. Yukalov & Didier Sornette, 2010. "Mathematical Structure Of Quantum Decision Theory," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(05), pages 659-698.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:acsxxx:v:13:y:2010:i:05:n:s0219525910002803
    DOI: 10.1142/S0219525910002803
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219525910002803
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S0219525910002803?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Al-Najjar, Nabil I. & Weinstein, Jonathan, 2009. "Rejoinder: The “Ambiguity Aversion Literature: A Critical Assessment”," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 357-369, November.
    2. Al-Najjar, Nabil I. & Weinstein, Jonathan, 2009. "The Ambiguity Aversion Literature: A Critical Assessment," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 249-284, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Godfrey Cadogan, 2012. "Representation theory for risk on markowitz-tversky-kahneman topology," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(4), pages 1-34.
    2. Ismaël Rafaï & Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci & Irina Basieva & Andrei Khrennikov, 2022. "The triple-store experiment: a first simultaneous test of classical and quantum probabilities in choice over menus," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 387-406, March.
    3. Thomas Boyer-Kassem & Sébastien Duchêne & Eric Guerci, 2016. "Quantum-like models cannot account for the conjunction fallacy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(4), pages 479-510, November.
    4. Maroussia Favre & Didier Sornette, 2015. "A Generic Model of Dyadic Social Relationships," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-16, March.
    5. Ashtiani, Mehrdad & Azgomi, Mohammad Abdollahi, 2015. "A survey of quantum-like approaches to decision making and cognition," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 49-80.
    6. Eichberger, Jürgen & Pirner, Hans Jürgen, 2018. "Decision theory with a state of mind represented by an element of a Hilbert space: The Ellsberg paradox," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 131-141.
    7. Huang, Zhiming & Yang, Lin & Jiang, Wen, 2019. "Uncertainty measurement with belief entropy on the interference effect in the quantum-like Bayesian Networks," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 347(C), pages 417-428.
    8. Fellnhofer, Katharina & Sornette, Didier, 2022. "Embracing The Intuitive-Analytical Paradox? How Intuitive And Analytical Decision-Making Drive Paradoxes In Simple And Complex Environments," OSF Preprints evjd6, Center for Open Science.
    9. Maroussia Favre & Amrei Wittwer & Hans Rudolf Heinimann & Vyacheslav I Yukalov & Didier Sornette, 2016. "Quantum Decision Theory in Simple Risky Choices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-29, December.
    10. Yukalov, V.I. & Yukalova, E.P. & Sornette, D., 2022. "Role of collective information in networks of quantum operating agents," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 598(C).
    11. Eichberger, Jürgen & Pirner, Hans Jürgen, 2017. "Decision Theory with a Hilbert Space as Possibility Space," Working Papers 0637, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    12. Ferro, Giuseppe M. & Kovalenko, Tatyana & Sornette, Didier, 2021. "Quantum decision theory augments rank-dependent expected utility and Cumulative Prospect Theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    13. Luke Snow & Shashwat Jain & Vikram Krishnamurthy, 2022. "Lyapunov based Stochastic Stability of Human-Machine Interaction: A Quantum Decision System Approach," Papers 2204.00059, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Federica Ceron & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2020. "Recursive objective and subjective multiple priors," Post-Print halshs-02900497, HAL.
    2. Baker, Erin & Bosetti, Valentina & Salo, Ahti, 2016. "Finding Common Ground when Experts Disagree: Belief Dominance over Portfolios of Alternatives," MITP: Mitigation, Innovation and Transformation Pathways 243147, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    3. Panagiotidis, Theodore & Printzis, Panagiotis, 2020. "What is the investment loss due to uncertainty?," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    4. Dominiak, Adam & Duersch, Peter & Lefort, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "A dynamic Ellsberg urn experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 625-638.
    5. Fleurbaey, Marc & Zuber, Stéphane, 2017. "Fair management of social risk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 666-706.
    6. Heyen, Daniel, 2018. "Ambiguity aversion under maximum-likelihood updating," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 80342, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Federica Ceron & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2020. "Recursive objective and subjective multiple priors," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-02900497, HAL.
    8. Razin, Ronny & Levy, Gilat, 2020. "Combining forecasts in the presence of ambiguity over correlation structures," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 104641, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Billot, Antoine & Vergopoulos, Vassili, 2018. "Expected utility without parsimony," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 14-21.
    10. Federica Ceron & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2020. "Recursive objective and subjective multiple priors," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-02563318, HAL.
    11. David Weisbach, 2015. "Introduction: Legal Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S2), pages 319-335.
    12. Divya Aggarwal & Pitabas Mohanty, 2022. "Influence of imprecise information on risk and ambiguity preferences: Experimental evidence," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(4), pages 1025-1038, June.
    13. Ellis, Andrew, 2018. "On dynamic consistency in ambiguous games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 241-249.
    14. Aldred, Jonathan, 2013. "Justifying precautionary policies: Incommensurability and uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 132-140.
    15. Fay, Scott & Feng, Cong & Patel, Pankaj C., 2022. "Staying small, staying strong? Retail store underexpansion and retailer profitability," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 663-678.
    16. Aloisio Araujo & Alain Chateauneuf & José Heleno Faro & Bruno Holanda, 2019. "Updating pricing rules," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(2), pages 335-361, September.
    17. Federica Ceron & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2020. "Recursive objective and subjective multiple priors," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 20008, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    18. Federica Ceron & Vassili Vergopoulos, 2020. "Recursive objective and subjective multiple priors," Working Papers halshs-02563318, HAL.
    19. Phoebe Koundouri & Nikitas Pittis & Panagiotis Samartzis, 2023. "Counterfactual Priors: A Bayesian Response to Ellsberg's Paradox," DEOS Working Papers 2307, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    20. R. R. Routledge & R. A. Edwards, 2020. "Ambiguity and price competition," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 88(2), pages 231-256, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Decision theory; utility theory; paradoxes in decision-making; action interference and entanglement; action prospects; D03; D81; D83; D84;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wsi:acsxxx:v:13:y:2010:i:05:n:s0219525910002803. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/acs/acs.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.