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

Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper Series

Estimation and Comparison Between Rank-Dependent Expected Utility, Cumulative Prospect Theory and Quantum Decision Theory

Giuseppe M. Ferro, Tatyana Kovalenko, Didier Sornette

Published Jan 1, 2020• 1 citation
Publisher
DOI
10.2139/ssrn.3706942

Related papers

Quantum Structures in Human Decision-Making: Towards Quantum Expected Utility

Sandro Sozzo

arXiv:1811.00875•International Journal of Theoretical Physics•Jan 28, 2019•8 citations

Decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement

Vyacheslav I. Yukalov, Didier Sornette

arXiv:1102.2738•Theory and Decision•Feb 20, 2010•213 citations

Quantum decision theory augments rank-dependent expected utility and Cumulative Prospect Theory

Giuseppe M. Ferro, Tatyana Kovalenko, Didier Sornette

Using experimental data on choices between pairs of lotteries, we compare a new parameterized Quantum Decision Theory (QDT) with Rank Dependent Utility Theory (RDU) and Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT). At the aggregate level, CPT-based QDT outperforms. At the individual level, the considerable heterogeneity across subjects is best described by the RDU-based QDT, at odds with the conclusion using the representative agent approach. The quantum attraction factor thus plays a key role in describing subjects’ behaviors at both levels. A large fraction of subjects exhibit temporal stability of asset integration attitudes. Another significant fraction of subjects are diagnosed to be using mixtures of mental models, which are elicited selectively depending on the nature of the presented choice alternatives.

Journal of Economic Psychology•Jul 7, 2021•28 citations

Quantum Uncertainty in Decision Theory

Vyacheslav I. Yukalov

•Jan 1, 2021•2 citations

Horse-race between decision-making models: Quantum Decision Theory and "Classical" counterparts.

Giuseppe M. Ferro

In this work, we study different parametrizations of Quantum Decision Theory (QDT) using experimental data made of choices between pairs of lotteries. We then compare QDT with two of most famous classical decision theories, Rank-Dependent Utility(RDU) and Cumulative Prospect Theory(CPT). At the aggregate level, assuming homogeneous preferences across subjects, we find that CPT-based QDT wins by far. At the individual level, we classify decision makers as RDU, CPT or QDT. Our major findings are: quantum factor plays a key role in describing subjects’ behaviour; there is a considerable heterogeneity across subjects so that the classic representative agent approach would be completely wrong for this sample.

•Jul 26, 2018•0 citations

Quantum Uncertainty in Decision Theory

Vyacheslav I. Yukalov

Studies in systems, decision and control•Jan 1, 2022•1 citation
Using experimental data on choices between pairs of lotteries, we compare a new parameterized Quantum Decision Theory (QDT) with Rank Dependent Utility Theory (RDU) and Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT). At the aggregate level, CPT-based QDT outperforms. At the individual level, the considerable heterogeneity across subjects is best described by the RDU-based QDT, at odds with the conclusion using the representative agent approach. The quantum attraction factor thus plays a key role in describing subjects’ behaviors at both levels. A large fraction of subjects exhibit temporal stability of asset integration attitudes. Another significant fraction of subjects are diagnosed to be using mixtures of mental models, which are elicited selectively depending on the nature of the presented choice alternatives.
In this work, we study different parametrizations of Quantum Decision Theory (QDT) using experimental data made of choices between pairs of lotteries. We then compare QDT with two of most famous classical decision theories, Rank-Dependent Utility(RDU) and Cumulative Prospect Theory(CPT). At the aggregate level, assuming homogeneous preferences across subjects, we find that CPT-based QDT wins by far. At the individual level, we classify decision makers as RDU, CPT or QDT. Our major findings are: quantum factor plays a key role in describing subjects’ behaviour; there is a considerable heterogeneity across subjects so that the classic representative agent approach would be completely wrong for this sample.