nach oben

Soft Computing

Erschienen in:

14.06.2019 | Focus

Explaining versus describing human decisions: Hilbert space structures in decision theory

verfasst von: Sandro Sozzo

Erschienen in: Soft Computing | Ausgabe 14/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Despite the impressive success of quantum structures to model long-standing human judgement and decision puzzles, the quantum cognition research programme still faces challenges about its explanatory power. Indeed, quantum models introduce new parameters, which may fit empirical data without necessarily explaining them. Also, one wonders whether more general non-classical structures are better equipped to model cognitive phenomena. In this paper, we provide a realistic–operational foundation of decision processes using a known decision-making puzzle, the Ellsberg paradox, as a case study. Then, we elaborate a novel representation of the Ellsberg decision situation applying standard quantum correspondence rules which map realistic–operational entities into quantum mathematical terms. This result opens the way towards an independent, foundational, rather than phenomenological, motivation for a general use of quantum Hilbert space structures in human cognition.

Vorheriger Artikel Special issue: quantum structures and quantum information theory

Nächster Artikel Violation of CHSH inequality and marginal laws in mixed sequential measurements with order effects

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

One of the axioms is the famous sure-thing principle, which is violated in the Ellsberg paradox. The other axioms are: ordinal event independence, comparative probability, non-degeneracy, small event continuity and dominance, and have a technical nature (Savage 1954). However, these axioms are not relevant to the present purposes, and hence, we will not dwell on them, for the sake of brevity.

Some authors identify the notion of “state” with the notion of “belief state” of the individual participating in the cognitive experiment, e.g. taking the decision (see, e.g. Busemeyer and Bruza 2012; Blutner and beim Graben 2016; Haven and Khrennikov 2013). We instead neatly distinguish states from measurements here. A state is defined by a preparation procedure of the cognitive entity under investigation. The participant in the experiment acts as a (measurement) context that interacts with the cognitive entity and changes its state.

Aerts D (1999) Foundations of quantum physics: a general realistic and operational approach. Int J Theor Phys 38:289–358MathSciNetCrossRef

Aerts D (2002) Being and change: foundations of a realistic operational formalism. In: Aerts D, Czachor M, Durt T (eds) Probing the structure of quantum mechanics: nonlinearity, nonlocality, computation and axiomatics. World Scientific, SingaporeCrossRef

Aerts D (2009) Quantum structure in cognition. J Math Psychol 53:314–348MathSciNetCrossRef

Aerts D, Sozzo S (2016) From ambiguity aversion to a generalized expected utility. Modeling preferences in a quantum probabilistic framework. J Math Psychol 74:117–127MathSciNetCrossRef

Aerts D, Broekaert J, Gabora L, Sozzo S (2013a) Quantum structure and human thought. Behav Brain Sci 36:274–276CrossRef

Aerts D, Gabora L, Sozzo S (2013b) Concepts and their dynamics: a quantum-theoretic modeling of human thought. Top Cogn Sci 5:737–772

Aerts D, Sozzo S, Tapia J (2014) Identifying quantum structures in the Ellsberg paradox. Int J Theor Phys 53:3666–3682MathSciNetCrossRef

Aerts D, Sassoli de Bianchi M, Sozzo S (2016) On the foundations of the Brussels operational-realistic approach to cognition. Front Phys. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2016.00017 CrossRef

Aerts D, Geriente S, Moreira C, Sozzo S (2018) Testing ambiguity and Machina preferences within a quantum-theoretic framework for decision-making. J Math Econ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmateco.2017.12.002 MathSciNetCrossRefMATH

Aerts D, Haven E, Sozzo S (2018) A proposal to extend expected utility in a quantum probabilistic framework. Econ Theory 65:1079–1109MathSciNetCrossRef

Ariely D, Prelec G, Lowenstein D (2003) “Coherent arbitrariness”: stable demand curve without stable preferences. Q J Econ 118:73–103CrossRef

Beltrametti EG, Cassinelli G (1981) The logic of quantum mechanics. Addison-Wesley, ReadingMATH

Blutner R, beim Graben P (2016) Quantum cognition and bounded rationality. Synthese 193:3239–3291MathSciNetCrossRef

Busemeyer JR, Bruza PD (2012) Quantum models of cognition and decision. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Dalla Chiara ML, Giuntini R, Leporini R, Sergioli G (2006) Holistic logical arguments in quantum computation. Math Slovaca 66:313–334MathSciNetMATH

Dalla Chiara ML, Giuntini R, Leporini R, Negri E, Sergioli G (2015) Quantum information, cognition, and music. Front Psychol. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01583 CrossRef

Ellsberg D (1961) Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Q J Econ 75:643–669MathSciNetCrossRef

Gigerenzer G, Selten R (2001) Bounded rationality: an adaptive toolbox. MIT Press, Cambridge

Gilboa I, Marinacci M (2013) Ambiguity and the Bayesian paradigm. In: Acemoglu D, Arellano M, Dekel E (eds) Advances in economics and econometrics: theory and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York

Haven E, Khrennikov AY (2013) Quantum Social Science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Holik F, Fortin S, Bosyk G, Plastino A (2016) On the interpretation of probabilities in generalized probabilistic models. Lect Notes Comput Sci 10106:194–205MathSciNetCrossRef

Holik F, Sergioli G, Freytes H, Plastino A (2017) Pattern recognition in non-Kolmogorovian structures. Found Sci 23:119–132CrossRef

Jauch JM (1968) Foundations of quantum mechanics. Addison Wesley, ReadingMATH

Kahneman D, Tversky A (eds) (2000) Choices. Values and frames. Cambridge University Press, New York

Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRef

Knight FH (1921) Risk, uncertainty and profit. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

Kolmogorov AN (1933) Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitrechnung, Ergebnisse Der Mathematik; translated as: Foundations of probability. Chelsea Publishing Company, New York (1950)

L’Haridon O, Placido L (2010) Betting on Machina’s reflection example: an experiment on ambiguity. Theor Decis 69:375–393MathSciNetCrossRef

Machina MJ (2009) Risk, ambiguity, and the dark-dependence axioms. Am Econ Rev 99:385–392CrossRef

Machina MJ, Siniscalchi M (2014) Ambiguity and ambiguity aversion. In: Machina MJ, Viscusi K (eds) Handbook of the economics of risk and uncertainty. Elsevier, New York, pp 729–807

Piron C (1976) Foundations of quantum physics. Benjamin, ReadingMATH

Savage L (1954) The foundations of statistics. Wiley, New York; revised and enlarged edition: Dover Publications, New York (1972)

Sen A (1997) Maximization and the act of choice. Econometrica 65:745–779MathSciNetCrossRef

Simon H (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69:99–118CrossRef

Sozzo S (2017) Effectiveness of the quantum-mechanical formalism in cognitive modeling. Soft Comput 21:1455–1465CrossRef

Sozzo S (2019) Quantum structures in human decision-making: towards quantum expected utility. Int J Theor Phys. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-019-04022-w CrossRef

Tversky A, Simonson I (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Manag Sci 39:85–117CrossRef

von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, PrincetonMATH

Titel: Explaining versus describing human decisions: Hilbert space structures in decision theory
verfasst von: Sandro Sozzo
Publikationsdatum: 14.06.2019
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Soft Computing / Ausgabe 14/2020
Print ISSN: 1432-7643
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-7479
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04140-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 14/2020

Behavioral DEA model and its application to the efficiency evaluation of manufacturing transformation and upgrading in the Yangtze River Delta

On residuation in paraorthomodular lattices

The Online Soft Computing Models of key variables based on the Boundary Forest method

A hybrid group search optimization: firefly algorithm-based big data framework for ancient script recognition

Partial discharge pattern analysis using multi-class support vector machine to estimate cavity size and position in solid insulation

Special issue: quantum structures and quantum information theory