Dynamic consistency of expected utility under non-classical (quantum) uncertainty

Quantum cognition in decision making is a recent and rapidly growing field. In this paper, we develop an expected utility theory in a context of non-classical (quantum) uncertainty. We replace the classical state space with a Hilbert space which allows introducing the concept of quantum lottery. Within that framework, we formulate axioms on preferences over quantum lotteries to establish a representation theorem. We show that demanding the consistency of choice behavior conditional on new information is equivalent to the von Neumann–Lüders postulate applied to beliefs. A dynamically consistent quantum-like agent may violate dynamic recursive consistency, however. This feature suggests interesting applications in behavioral economics as we illustrate in an example of persuasion.

[1]  J. Jaffray,et al.  Rational Behavior under Complete Ignorance , 1980 .

[2]  Michel Bitbol Théorie quantique et sciences humaines , 2009 .

[3]  Itamar Pitowsky,et al.  Betting on the Outcomes of Measurements:A Bayesian Theory of Quantum Probability , 2003 .

[4]  A. Copeland Book Review: Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945 .

[5]  V. I. Danilov,et al.  Expected utility theory under non-classical uncertainty , 2010 .

[6]  Adam Brandenburger,et al.  Team decision problems with classical and quantum signals , 2016, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

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

[8]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  The rational choice, values and frames , 2003 .

[9]  A Subjective Approach to Quantum Probability , 2005 .

[10]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Utility theory for decision making , 1970 .

[11]  I. Pitowsky,et al.  Betting on the Outcomes of Measurements: A Bayesian Theory of Quantum Probability , 2002, quant-ph/0208121.

[12]  F. J. Anscombe 17 A Definition of Subjective Probability with , 2022 .

[13]  A. Copeland Review: John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945 .

[14]  David S. Ahn,et al.  Framing Contingencies ∗ , 2007 .

[15]  Robert J. Shiller,et al.  Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation and Deception , 2015 .

[16]  Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky,et al.  Dynamic consistency of expected utility under non-classical uncertainty , 2018 .

[17]  F. Dubois,et al.  Our (represented) World: A Quantum-Like Object , 2015 .

[18]  A. Uhlmann,et al.  Stochasticity and Partial Order , 1982 .

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

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

[21]  L. J. Savage,et al.  The Foundation of Statistics , 1956 .

[22]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  A Quantum Probability Model of Causal Reasoning , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[23]  Vladimir I. Danilov,et al.  Measurable systems and behavioral sciences , 2008, Math. Soc. Sci..

[24]  E. Lehrer,et al.  A qualitative approach to quantum probability , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[25]  David Deutsch Quantum theory of probability and decisions , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[26]  Paolo Ghirardato,et al.  Revisiting Savage in a conditional world , 2002 .