Laboratory games and quantum behaviour : the normal form with a separable state space
Hammond, Peter J., 1945- (2011) Laboratory games and quantum behaviour : the normal form with a separable state space. Working Paper. Coventry: University of Warwick. Dept. of Economics. (Warwick economics research paper series (TWERPS)).
WRAP_Hammond_twerp_969.pdf - Other - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Official URL: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/resear...
The subjective expected utility (SEU) criterion is formulated for a particular four-person “laboratory game” that a Bayesian rational decision maker plays with Nature, Chance, and an Experimenter who influences what quantum behaviour is observable by choosing an orthonormal basis in a separable complex Hilbert space of latent variables. Nature chooses a state in this basis, along with an observed data series governing Chance's random choice of consequence. When Gleason's theorem holds, imposing quantum equivalence implies that the expected likelihood of any data series w.r.t. prior beliefs equals the trace of the product of appropriate subjective density and likelihood operators.
|Item Type:||Working or Discussion Paper (Working Paper)|
|Subjects:||Q Science > QA Mathematics|
|Divisions:||Faculty of Social Sciences > Economics|
|Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):||Bayesian statistical decision theory, Game theory|
|Series Name:||Warwick economics research paper series (TWERPS)|
|Publisher:||University of Warwick. Dept. of Economics|
|Place of Publication:||Coventry|
|Status:||Not Peer Reviewed|
|Access rights to Published version:||Open Access|
|Funder:||European Commission (EC)|
|Grant number:||MEXC-CT-2006-041121 (EC)|
|References:||Anscombe, F.J. and R.J. Aumann (1963) “A Definition of Subjective Probability,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34, 199–205. Arrow, K.J. (1971) Essays in the Theory of Risk Bearing (Amsterdam: North Holland). Barnum, H., C.M. Caves, J. Finkelstein, C.A. Fuchs, and R. Schack (2000) “Quantum Probability from Decision Theory” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A 456: 1175–1182. Boole, G. (1862) “On the Theory of Probabilities” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 152: 225–52. Caves, C.M., C.A. Fuchs, and R. Schack (2002) “Quantum Probabilities as Bayesian Probabilities” Physical Review A 65: 022305. Danilov, V. and A. Lambert-Mogiliansky (2008) “Measurable Systems and Behavioral Sciences” Mathematical Social Sciences 55: 315–340. Danilov, V.I. and A. Lambert-Mogiliansky (2010) “Expected Utility Theory under Non-Classical Uncertainty” Theory and Decision 68: 25–47. Deutsch, D. (1999) “Quantum Theory of Probability and Decisions” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, A 455: 3129–3137. Feynman, R.P. (1951) “The Concept of Probability in Quantum Mechanics” Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press), 533–541. Fishburn, P.C. (1982) The Foundations of Expected Utility (Dordrecht: D. Reidel). Friedman, A. (1982) Foundations of Modern Analysis (New York: Dover). Gleason, A.M. (1957) “Measures on Closed Subspaces of a Hilbert Space” Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 6: 885–894. Griffiths, R.B. (2003) Consistent Quantum Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Gyntelberg, J. and F. Hansen (2009) “Subjective Expected Utility Theory with ‘Small Worlds’”, Discussion Paper 09-26, University of Copenhagen, Department of Economics; http://econpapers. repec.org/RePEc:kud:kuiedp:0926. Hammond, P.J. (1998a) “Objective Expected Utility: A Consequentialist Perspective” in S. Barber`a, P.J. Hammond and C. Seidl (eds.) Handbook of Utility Theory, Vol. 1: Principles (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic) ch. 5, pp. 143–211. Hammond, P.J. (1998b) “Subjective Expected Utility” in S. Barber`a, P.J. Hammond and C. Seidl (eds.) Handbook of Utility Theory, Vol. 1: Principles (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic) ch. 6, pp. 213–271. Hess, K. and W. Philipp (2005) “Bell’s Theorem: Critique of Proofs with and without Inequalities” in Proceedings of the Conference on the Foundations of Probability and Physics-3 750: 150–155 (Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics). Janssens, B. (2004) Quantum Measurement: A Coherent Description Master’s Thesis, Radboud University, Nijmegen; arXiv:quant-ph/0503009v1. Khrennikov, A.Yu. (2008) “Contextual Probabilistic Analysis of Bell’s Inequality: Nonlocality, ‘Death of Reality’ or Non-Kolmogorovness?” in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Quantum, Nano and Micro Technologies (ICQNM) (IEEE Computer Society: Washington, DC). La Mura, P. (2009) “Projective Expected Utility: A Subjective Formulation” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53: 408–414. Parthasarathy, K.R. (1992) An Introduction to Quantum Stochastic Calculus (Basel: Birkh¨auser Verlag). Pitowsky, I. (1994) “George Boole’s ‘Conditions of Possible Experience’ and the Quantum Puzzle” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45: 95–125. Pitowsky, I. (2003) “Betting on the Outcomes of Measurements: A Bayesian Theory of Quantum Probability” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 34: 395–414. Savage, L.J. (1954, 1972) Foundations of Statistics (New York: John Wiley; and New York: Dover Publications). Schack, R., T.A. Brun and C.M. Caves (2001) “Quantum Bayes Rule” Physical Review A 64: 014305. Shafer, G. and V. Vovk (2001) Probability and Finance: It’s Only a Game! (New York: John Wiley). Slavnov, D.A. (2001) “Statistical Algebraic Approach to Quantum Mechanics” Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 129: 1385–1397. Suppes, P. (1961) “Probability Concepts in Quantum Mechanics” Philosophy of Science 28: 378–389. Suppes, P. (ed.) (1976) Logic and Probability in Quantum Mechanics (Dordrecht: D. Reidel). Von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern (1944; 3rd edn. 1953) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Vorob0ev, N.N. (1962) “Consistent Families of Measures and Their Extensions” Theory of Probability and its Applications 7: 147–163.|
Actions (login required)