From Ambiguity Aversion to a Generalized Expected Utility. Modeling Preferences in a Quantum Probabilistic Framework

Ambiguity and ambiguity aversion have been widely studied in decision theory and economics both at a theoretical and an experimental level. After Ellsberg's seminal studies challenging subjective expected utility theory (SEUT), several (mainly normative) approaches have been put forward to reproduce ambiguity aversion and Ellsberg-type preferences. However, Machina and other authors have pointed out some fundamental difficulties of these generalizations of SEUT to cope with some variants of Ellsberg's thought experiments, which has recently been experimentally confirmed. Starting from our quantum modeling approach to human cognition, we develop here a general probabilistic framework to model human decisions under uncertainty. We show that our quantum theoretical model faithfully represents different sets of data collected on both the Ellsberg and the Machina paradox situations, and is flexible enough to describe different subjective attitudes with respect to ambiguity. Our approach opens the way toward a quantum-based generalization of expected utility theory (QEUT), where subjective probabilities depend on the state of the conceptual entity at play and its interaction with the decision-maker, while preferences between acts are determined by the maximization of this 'state-dependent expected utility'.

[1]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision , 2012 .

[2]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum structure of negation and conjunction in human thought , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[3]  Mark J. Machina,et al.  Risk, Ambiguity, and the Rank-Dependence Axioms , 2009 .

[4]  A. Gleason Measures on the Closed Subspaces of a Hilbert Space , 1957 .

[5]  Jennifer S Trueblood,et al.  A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. , 2011, Psychological review.

[6]  Richard M. Shiffrin,et al.  Context effects produced by question orders reveal quantum nature of human judgments , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Pierfrancesco La Mura Projective expected utility: a subjective formulation , 2008, TARK '09.

[8]  M. Allais,et al.  Fondements d'une theorie positive des choix comportant un risque et critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine , 1959 .

[9]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  A Quantum Model for the Ellsberg and Machina Paradoxes , 2012, QI.

[10]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  A theory of concepts and their combinations I: The structure of the sets of contexts and properties , 2005 .

[11]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  New fundamental evidence of non-classical structure in the combination of natural concepts , 2015, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[12]  J. Hampton,et al.  Disjunction of natural concepts , 1988, Memory & cognition.

[13]  M. Allais Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque : critique des postulats et axiomes de l'ecole americaine , 1953 .

[14]  F. Knight The economic nature of the firm: From Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit , 2009 .

[15]  Jerome R Busemeyer,et al.  Can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling? , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[16]  K. Sailer Quantum mechanics, 4th Ed. Alastair I.M. Rae , 2003 .

[17]  Marciano M. Siniscalchi,et al.  Ambiguity and Ambiguity Aversion , 2014 .

[18]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity , 1992 .

[19]  K. MacCrimmon,et al.  Utility Theory: Axioms Versus ‘Paradoxes’ , 1979 .

[20]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[22]  D. Schmeidler Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity , 1989 .

[23]  A. Tversky,et al.  A Belief-Based Account of Decision Under Uncertainty , 1998 .

[24]  M. Marinacci,et al.  A Smooth Model of Decision Making Under Ambiguity , 2003 .

[25]  Ken Binmore,et al.  How much ambiguity aversion? , 2012 .

[26]  J. Schreiber Foundations Of Statistics , 2016 .

[27]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Concepts and Their Dynamics: A Quantum-Theoretic Modeling of Human Thought , 2012, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[28]  A. Tversky,et al.  Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty , 1992 .

[29]  A. Messiah Quantum Mechanics , 1961 .

[30]  Eugene Borgida,et al.  The Conjunction Fallacy , 1984 .

[31]  A. Khrennikov,et al.  Quantum Social Science , 2013 .

[32]  Craig R. Fox,et al.  Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance , 1995 .

[33]  J. Busemeyer,et al.  A quantum probability explanation for violations of ‘rational’ decision theory , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[34]  A. Tversky,et al.  Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment , 1983 .

[35]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Decision Making under Ambiguity , 1986 .

[36]  J. Hampton Overextension of Conjunctive Concepts: Evidence for a Unitary Model of Concept Typicality and Class Inclusion , 1988 .

[37]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum structure and human thought. , 2013, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[38]  Laetitia Placido,et al.  Ambiguity models and the machina paradoxes , 2011 .

[39]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Structure in Cognition , 2008, 0805.3850.

[40]  I. Gilboa,et al.  Maxmin Expected Utility with Non-Unique Prior , 1989 .

[41]  Massimo Marinacci,et al.  AMBIGUITY AVERSION, ROBUSTNESS, AND THE VARIATIONAL , 2006 .

[42]  A. Tversky,et al.  The Disjunction Effect in Choice under Uncertainty , 1992 .

[43]  T. Sargent,et al.  Robust Control and Model Uncertainty , 2001 .

[44]  Olivier L’Haridon,et al.  Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity , 2010 .

[45]  W. Kip Viscusi,et al.  Handbook of the economics of risk and uncertainty , 2014 .

[46]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[47]  A. Tversky,et al.  Who accepts Savage's axiom? , 1974 .

[48]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Quantum Entanglement in Concept Combinations , 2013, ArXiv.

[49]  A. Rustichini,et al.  Ambiguity Aversion, Robustness, and the Variational Representation of Preferences , 2006 .

[50]  A. Tversky,et al.  Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction fallacy in probability judgment , 1983 .

[51]  D. Ellsberg Decision, probability, and utility: Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms , 1961 .

[52]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  Identifying Quantum Structures in the Ellsberg Paradox , 2013, International Journal of Theoretical Physics.

[53]  Diederik Aerts,et al.  A Theory of Concepts and Their Combinations II: A Hilbert Space Representation , 2004 .