Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1703.05691 · Entropy

Quantum Probabilities as Behavioral Probabilities

Vyacheslav I. Yukalov, Didier Sornette

Published Mar 13, 2017• 44 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We demonstrate that behavioral probabilities of human decision makers share many common features with quantum probabilities. This does not imply that humans are some quantum objects, but just shows that the mathematics of quantum theory is applicable to the description of human decision making. The applicability of quantum rules for describing decision making is connected with the nontrivial process of making decisions in the case of composite prospects under uncertainty. Such a process involves deliberations of a decision maker when making a choice. In addition to the evaluation of the utilities of considered prospects, real decision makers also appreciate their respective attractiveness. Therefore, human choice is not based solely on the utility of prospects, but includes the necessity of resolving the utility-attraction duality. In order to justify that human consciousness really functions similarly to the rules of quantum theory, we develop an approach defining human behavioral probabilities as the probabilities determined by quantum rules. We show that quantum behavioral probabilities of humans do not merely explain qualitatively how human decisions are made, but they predict quantitative values of the behavioral probabilities. Analyzing a large set of empirical data, we find good quantitative agreement between theoretical predictions and observed experimental data.

DOI
10.3390/e19030112

Related papers

Mathematical Basis of Quantum Decision Theory

Vyacheslav I. Yukalov, Didier Sornette

Following the ideas of Bohr, Von Neumann, and Benioff, we formulate quantum decision theory (QDT) as the quantum-mechanical theory of measurement for probability operators. QDT captures the effect of superposition of composite prospects, including many incorporated intentions. It is based on the hypothesis that the thought processes of real human beings involved in the definition and analysis of alternative prospects and scenarios do not necessarily separate them according to the recipes of standard probability theory and of classical utility theory. Our QDT formalizes systematically a broader class of decision making processes in which prospects can interact, interfere and remain entangled. The mathematical QDT is developed so as to be applicable to real-life decision making processes. We demonstrate that all known anomalies and paradoxes documented in the context of classical utility theory are reducible to just a few mathematical archetypes, all of which finding straightforward explanations in the framework of QDT. Interference terms, which are essential for resolving the paradoxes, quantify the aversion of human beings to uncertainty and/or to perceived potential loss resulting from their decisions.

Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series•Jan 1, 2008•1 citation

Quantitative Predictions in Quantum Decision Theory

Vyacheslav I. Yukalov, Didier Sornette

Quantum decision theory, advanced earlier by the authors, and illustrated for lotteries with gains, is generalized to the games containing lotteries with gains as well as losses. The mathematical structure of the approach is based on the theory of quantum measurements, which makes this approach relevant both for the description of decision making of humans and the creation of artificial quantum intelligence. General rules are formulated allowing for the explicit calculation of quantum probabilities representing the fraction of decision makers preferring the considered prospects. This provides a method to quantitatively predict decision-maker choices, including the cases of games with high uncertainty for which the classical expected utility theory fails. The approach is applied to experimental results obtained on a set of lottery gambles with gains and losses. Our predictions, involving no fitting parameters, are in very good agreement with experimental data. The use of quantum decision making in game theory is described. A principal scheme of creating quantum artificial intelligence is suggested.

arXiv:1802.06348•IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Systems•Aug 15, 2016•59 citations

Manipulating Decision Making of Typical Agents

Vyacheslav I. Yukalov, Didier Sornette

We investigate how the choice of decision makers can be varied under the presence of risk and uncertainty. Our analysis is based on the approach we have previously applied to individual decision makers, which we now generalize to the case of decision makers that are members of a society. The approach employs the mathematical techniques that are common in quantum theory, justifying our naming as quantum decision theory. However, we do not assume that decision makers are quantum objects. The techniques of quantum theory are needed only for defining the prospect probabilities taking into account such hidden variables as behavioral biases and other subconscious feelings. The approach describes an agent's choice as a probabilistic event occurring with a probability that is the sum of a utility factor and of an attraction factor. The attraction factor embodies subjective and unconscious dimensions in the mind of the decision maker. We show that the typical aggregate amplitude of the attraction factor is 1/4, and it can be either positive or negative depending on the relative attraction of the competing choices. The most efficient way of varying the decision makers choice is realized by influencing the attraction factor. This can be done in two ways. One method is to arrange in a special manner the payoff weights, which induces the required changes of the values of attraction factors. We show that a slight variation of the payoff weights can invert the sign of the attraction factors and reverse the decision preferences, even when the prospect utilities remain unchanged. The second method of influencing the decision makers choice is by providing information to decision makers. The methods of influencing decision making are illustrated by several experiments, whose outcomes are compared quantitatively with the predictions of our approach.

IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Systems•Apr 17, 2014•45 citations

Manipulating decision making of typical agents

Vyacheslav I. Yukalov, Didier Sornette

We investigate how the choice of decision makers can be varied under the presence of risk and uncertainty. Our analysis is based on the approach we have previously applied to individual decision makers, which we now generalize to the case of decision makers that are members of a society. The approach employs the mathematical techniques that are common in quantum theory, justifying our naming as Quantum Decision Theory. However, we do not assume that decision makers are quantum objects. The techniques of quantum theory are needed only for defining the prospect probabilities taking into account such hidden variables as behavioral biases and other subconscious feelings. The approach describes an agent's choice as a probabilistic event occurring with a probability that is the sum of a utility factor and of an attraction factor. The attraction factor embodies subjective and unconscious dimensions in the mind of the decision maker. We show that the typical aggregate amplitude of the attraction factor is $1/4$, and it can be either positive or negative depending on the relative attraction of the competing choices. The most efficient way of varying the decision makers choice is realized by influencing the attraction factor. This can be done in two ways. One method is to arrange in a special manner the payoff weights, which induces the required changes of the values of attraction factors. We show that a slight variation of the payoff weights can invert the sign of the attraction factors and reverse the decision preferences, even when the prospect utilities remain unchanged. The second method of influencing the decision makers choice is by providing information to decision makers. The methods of influencing decision making are illustrated by several experiments, whose outcomes are compared quantitatively with the predictions of our approach.

arXiv:1409.0636•Sep 2, 2014•1 citation

A Generalized Probability Framework to Model Economic Agents' Decisions Under Uncertainty

Emmanuel E. Haven, Sandro Sozzo

The applications of techniques from statistical (and classical) mechanics to model interesting problems in economics and finance has produced valuable results. The principal movement which has steered this research direction is known under the name of `econophysics'. In this paper, we illustrate and advance some of the findings that have been obtained by applying the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics to model human decision making under `uncertainty' in behavioral economics and finance. Starting from Ellsberg's seminal article, decision making situations have been experimentally verified where the application of Kolmogorovian probability in the formulation of expected utility is problematic. Those probability measures which by necessity must situate themselves in Hilbert space (such as `quantum probability') enable a faithful representation of experimental data. We thus provide an explanation for the effectiveness of the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics in the modeling of human decision making. We want to be explicit though that we are not claiming that decision making has microscopic quantum mechanical features.

arXiv:1511.06734•Nov 20, 2015•0 citations

Quantum cognition and rational choice

Alexander E. Wendt

Of the three faculties of subjectivity, the empirical case for quantum cognition is the strongest. In the past decade a rapidly growing body of scholarship has emerged at the intersection of mathematical psychology and physics that not only models cognition in explicitly quantum terms, but has rigorously tested these models as well. While it remains to be seen how mainstream psychologists will respond, “quantum decision theory” has clearly come of age. Moreover, at the same time an almost completely independent literature has emerged on quantum game theory as well. This work is more in a purely formal vein and thus less well tested against real data, although its predictions about how people should behave in quantum games appear to conform to what experimental game theorists have found. I briefly take up quantum game theory at the end of this chapter, but my main focus will be on its decision-theoretic cousin. Quantum consciousness theory suggests that human beings are literally walking wave functions. Most quantum decision theorists would not go that far, and indeed – perhaps wary of controversy – they generally barely mention quantum consciousness, and then only to emphasize that they are making no claims about what is going on deep inside the brain (much less about consciousness), but are only interested in behavior. Instead, they have motivated their work in two other ways. First, they have highlighted the intuitive fit between quantum theory's indeterminism and the probabilistic character of human behavior. If we were founding the social sciences today and started – without metaphysical prejudice – by looking for useful models in physics, then quantum models would be a much more obvious import than classical ones. Second, quantum decision theorists have argued that their model can explain long-standing anomalies in human behavior under uncertainty. Beyond that they have remained agnostic about quantum consciousness, which makes quantum decision theory a form of what is called “weak” or “generalized” quantum theory, in which the formalism is detached from its physical basis and used simply as a tool to describe phenomena.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 20, 2015•2 citations
We demonstrate that behavioral probabilities of human decision makers share many common features with quantum probabilities. This does not imply that humans are some quantum objects, but just shows that the mathematics of quantum theory is applicable to the description of human decision making. The applicability of quantum rules for describing decision making is connected with the nontrivial process of making decisions in the case of composite prospects under uncertainty. Such a process involves deliberations of a decision maker when making a choice. In addition to the evaluation of the utilities of considered prospects, real decision makers also appreciate their respective attractiveness. Therefore, human choice is not based solely on the utility of prospects, but includes the necessity of resolving the utility-attraction duality. In order to justify that human consciousness really functions similarly to the rules of quantum theory, we develop an approach defining human behavioral probabilities as the probabilities determined by quantum rules. We show that quantum behavioral probabilities of humans do not merely explain qualitatively how human decisions are made, but they predict quantitative values of the behavioral probabilities. Analyzing a large set of empirical data, we find good quantitative agreement between theoretical predictions and observed experimental data.
Following the ideas of Bohr, Von Neumann, and Benioff, we formulate quantum decision theory (QDT) as the quantum-mechanical theory of measurement for probability operators. QDT captures the effect of superposition of composite prospects, including many incorporated intentions. It is based on the hypothesis that the thought processes of real human beings involved in the definition and analysis of alternative prospects and scenarios do not necessarily separate them according to the recipes of standard probability theory and of classical utility theory. Our QDT formalizes systematically a broader class of decision making processes in which prospects can interact, interfere and remain entangled. The mathematical QDT is developed so as to be applicable to real-life decision making processes. We demonstrate that all known anomalies and paradoxes documented in the context of classical utility theory are reducible to just a few mathematical archetypes, all of which finding straightforward explanations in the framework of QDT. Interference terms, which are essential for resolving the paradoxes, quantify the aversion of human beings to uncertainty and/or to perceived potential loss resulting from their decisions.
Quantum decision theory, advanced earlier by the authors, and illustrated for lotteries with gains, is generalized to the games containing lotteries with gains as well as losses. The mathematical structure of the approach is based on the theory of quantum measurements, which makes this approach relevant both for the description of decision making of humans and the creation of artificial quantum intelligence. General rules are formulated allowing for the explicit calculation of quantum probabilities representing the fraction of decision makers preferring the considered prospects. This provides a method to quantitatively predict decision-maker choices, including the cases of games with high uncertainty for which the classical expected utility theory fails. The approach is applied to experimental results obtained on a set of lottery gambles with gains and losses. Our predictions, involving no fitting parameters, are in very good agreement with experimental data. The use of quantum decision making in game theory is described. A principal scheme of creating quantum artificial intelligence is suggested.
We investigate how the choice of decision makers can be varied under the presence of risk and uncertainty. Our analysis is based on the approach we have previously applied to individual decision makers, which we now generalize to the case of decision makers that are members of a society. The approach employs the mathematical techniques that are common in quantum theory, justifying our naming as quantum decision theory. However, we do not assume that decision makers are quantum objects. The techniques of quantum theory are needed only for defining the prospect probabilities taking into account such hidden variables as behavioral biases and other subconscious feelings. The approach describes an agent's choice as a probabilistic event occurring with a probability that is the sum of a utility factor and of an attraction factor. The attraction factor embodies subjective and unconscious dimensions in the mind of the decision maker. We show that the typical aggregate amplitude of the attraction factor is 1/4, and it can be either positive or negative depending on the relative attraction of the competing choices. The most efficient way of varying the decision makers choice is realized by influencing the attraction factor. This can be done in two ways. One method is to arrange in a special manner the payoff weights, which induces the required changes of the values of attraction factors. We show that a slight variation of the payoff weights can invert the sign of the attraction factors and reverse the decision preferences, even when the prospect utilities remain unchanged. The second method of influencing the decision makers choice is by providing information to decision makers. The methods of influencing decision making are illustrated by several experiments, whose outcomes are compared quantitatively with the predictions of our approach.
We investigate how the choice of decision makers can be varied under the presence of risk and uncertainty. Our analysis is based on the approach we have previously applied to individual decision makers, which we now generalize to the case of decision makers that are members of a society. The approach employs the mathematical techniques that are common in quantum theory, justifying our naming as Quantum Decision Theory. However, we do not assume that decision makers are quantum objects. The techniques of quantum theory are needed only for defining the prospect probabilities taking into account such hidden variables as behavioral biases and other subconscious feelings. The approach describes an agent's choice as a probabilistic event occurring with a probability that is the sum of a utility factor and of an attraction factor. The attraction factor embodies subjective and unconscious dimensions in the mind of the decision maker. We show that the typical aggregate amplitude of the attraction factor is 1/41/41/4, and it can be either positive or negative depending on the relative attraction of the competing choices. The most efficient way of varying the decision makers choice is realized by influencing the attraction factor. This can be done in two ways. One method is to arrange in a special manner the payoff weights, which induces the required changes of the values of attraction factors. We show that a slight variation of the payoff weights can invert the sign of the attraction factors and reverse the decision preferences, even when the prospect utilities remain unchanged. The second method of influencing the decision makers choice is by providing information to decision makers. The methods of influencing decision making are illustrated by several experiments, whose outcomes are compared quantitatively with the predictions of our approach.
The applications of techniques from statistical (and classical) mechanics to model interesting problems in economics and finance has produced valuable results. The principal movement which has steered this research direction is known under the name of `econophysics'. In this paper, we illustrate and advance some of the findings that have been obtained by applying the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics to model human decision making under `uncertainty' in behavioral economics and finance. Starting from Ellsberg's seminal article, decision making situations have been experimentally verified where the application of Kolmogorovian probability in the formulation of expected utility is problematic. Those probability measures which by necessity must situate themselves in Hilbert space (such as `quantum probability') enable a faithful representation of experimental data. We thus provide an explanation for the effectiveness of the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics in the modeling of human decision making. We want to be explicit though that we are not claiming that decision making has microscopic quantum mechanical features.
Of the three faculties of subjectivity, the empirical case for quantum cognition is the strongest. In the past decade a rapidly growing body of scholarship has emerged at the intersection of mathematical psychology and physics that not only models cognition in explicitly quantum terms, but has rigorously tested these models as well. While it remains to be seen how mainstream psychologists will respond, “quantum decision theory” has clearly come of age. Moreover, at the same time an almost completely independent literature has emerged on quantum game theory as well. This work is more in a purely formal vein and thus less well tested against real data, although its predictions about how people should behave in quantum games appear to conform to what experimental game theorists have found. I briefly take up quantum game theory at the end of this chapter, but my main focus will be on its decision-theoretic cousin. Quantum consciousness theory suggests that human beings are literally walking wave functions. Most quantum decision theorists would not go that far, and indeed – perhaps wary of controversy – they generally barely mention quantum consciousness, and then only to emphasize that they are making no claims about what is going on deep inside the brain (much less about consciousness), but are only interested in behavior. Instead, they have motivated their work in two other ways. First, they have highlighted the intuitive fit between quantum theory's indeterminism and the probabilistic character of human behavior. If we were founding the social sciences today and started – without metaphysical prejudice – by looking for useful models in physics, then quantum models would be a much more obvious import than classical ones. Second, quantum decision theorists have argued that their model can explain long-standing anomalies in human behavior under uncertainty. Beyond that they have remained agnostic about quantum consciousness, which makes quantum decision theory a form of what is called “weak” or “generalized” quantum theory, in which the formalism is detached from its physical basis and used simply as a tool to describe phenomena.