# Quantum and Classical Bayesian Agents

John B. DeBrota1 and Peter J. Love

1Department of Physics and Astronomy, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA

### Abstract

We describe a general approach to modeling rational decision-making agents who adopt either quantum or classical mechanics based on the Quantum Bayesian (QBist) approach to quantum theory. With the additional ingredient of a scheme by which the properties of one agent may influence another, we arrive at a flexible framework for treating multiple interacting quantum and classical Bayesian agents. We present simulations in several settings to illustrate our construction: quantum and classical agents receiving signals from an exogenous source, two interacting classical agents, two interacting quantum agents, and interactions between classical and quantum agents. A consistent treatment of multiple interacting users of quantum theory may allow us to properly interpret existing multi-agent protocols and could suggest new approaches in other areas such as quantum algorithm design.

### ► References

[1] Eugene P. Wigner Remarks on the Mind-Body Question'' William Heinemann, Ltd. (1961).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-3-642-78374-6_20

[2] Daniela Frauchigerand Renato Renner Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself'' Nature Communications 9, 3711 (2018).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41467-018-05739-8
arXiv:1604.07422

[3] Veronika Baumannand Časlav Brukner Wigner’s friend as a rational agent'' Quantum, probability, logic: the work and influence of Itamar Pitowsky (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-3-030-34316-3_4
arXiv:1901.11274

[4] Asher Peres Incompatible results of quantum measurements'' Physics Letters A 151, 107–108 (1990).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​0375-9601(90)90172-K

[5] N. David Mermin Simple unified form for the major no-hidden-variables theorems'' Physical Review Letters 65, 3373–3376 (1990).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.65.3373

[6] Alexei Yu Kitaev, Alexander H. Shen, and Mikhail N. Vyalyi, Classical and Quantum Computation'' American Mathematical Society (2002).

[7] Thomas Vidick The Complexity of Entangled Games'' thesis (2013).
https:/​/​escholarship.org/​uc/​item/​5v49k1z2

[8] Myrto Arapinis, Nikolaos Lamprou, Elham Kashefi, and Anna Pappa, Definitions and Security of Quantum Electronic Voting'' ACM Transactions on Quantum Computing 2, 1–33 (2021).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1145/​3450144
arXiv:1810.05083

[9] E. T. Khabiboulline, J. S. Sandhu, M. U. Gambetta, M. D. Lukin, and J. Borregaard, Efficient Quantum Voting with Information-Theoretic Security'' (2021).
arXiv:2112.14242

[10] Christopher A. Fuchsand Blake C. Stacey QBism: Quantum Theory as a Hero's Handbook'' Proceedings of the International School of Physics "Enrico Fermi": Course 197, Foundations of Quantum Theory 133–202 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.3254/​978-1-61499-937-9-133
arXiv:1612.07308

[11] Christopher A. Fuchs QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism'' (2010).
arXiv:1003.5209

[12] Christopher A. Fuchsand Rüdiger Schack Quantum-Bayesian coherence'' Reviews of Modern Physics 85, 1693–1715 (2013).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​RevModPhys.85.1693
arXiv:0906.2187

[13] John B. DeBrota, Christopher A. Fuchs, and Rüdiger Schack, Respecting One’s Fellow: QBism’s Analysis of Wigner’s Friend'' Foundations of Physics (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10701-020-00369-x
arXiv:2008.03572

[14] José M. Bernardoand Adrian F. M. Smith Bayesian theory'' Wiley (2000).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1002/​9780470316870

[15] Paul J. H. Schoemaker Experiments on Decisions under Risk: The Expected Utility Hypothesis'' Springer Netherlands (1980).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-94-017-5040-0

[16] Peter C. Fishburn Subjective expected utility: A review of normative theories'' Theory and Decision 13, 139–199 (1981).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF00134215

[17] Bruno de Finetti La prévision: ses lois logiques, ses sources subjectives'' Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincaré 7, 1–68 (1937) Reprinted as Foresight: Its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources' in Breakthroughs in Statistics (S. Kotz and N. L. Johnson, eds.). New York: Springer, 134–174, 1992.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-1-4612-0919-5_10

[18] Carlton M. Caves, Christopher A. Fuchs, and Rüdiger Schack, Subjective probability and quantum certainty'' Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38, 255–274 (2007).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.shpsb.2006.10.007

[19] Robin Blume-Kohoutand Patrick Hayden Accurate quantum state estimation via Keeping the experimentalist honest'''' (2006).

[20] R. Balescu Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics'' Krieger Publishing Company (1991).

[21] John B. DeBrota, Christopher A. Fuchs, Jacques L. Pienaar, and Blake C. Stacey, Born's rule as a quantum extension of Bayesian coherence'' Phys. Rev. A 104, 022207 (2021).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.104.022207
arXiv:2012.14397

[22] Christopher Ferrieand Joseph Emerson Frame representations of quantum mechanics and the necessity of negativity in quasi-probability representations'' Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 41, 352001 (2008).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1751-8113/​41/​35/​352001
arXiv:0711.2658

[23] Christopher Ferrie, Ryan Morris, and Joseph Emerson, Necessity of negativity in quantum theory'' Physical Review A 82, 044103 (2010).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.82.044103
arXiv:0910.3198

[24] John B. DeBrota, Christopher A. Fuchs, and Blake C. Stacey, The Varieties of Minimal Tomographically Complete Measurements'' International Journal of Quantum Information 9, 445–507 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1142/​s0219749920400055
arXiv:1812.08762

[25] M. A. Nielsenand I. Chuang Quantum Computation and Quantum Information'' Cambridge University Press (2010).

[26] Mark Wilde Quantum information theory'' Cambridge University Press (2013).

[27] John B. DeBrotaand Blake C. Stacey Lüders channels and the existence of symmetric-informationally-complete measurements'' Physical Review A 100, 062327 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.100.062327
arXiv:1907.10999

[28] John B. DeBrota, Christopher A. Fuchs, and Blake C. Stacey, Symmetric Informationally Complete measurements identify the irreducible difference between classical and quantum systems'' Physical Review Research 2, 013074 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevResearch.2.013074
arXiv:1805.08721

[29] John B. DeBrotaand Blake C. Stacey Discrete Wigner functions from informationally complete quantum measurements'' Physical Review A 102, 032221 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.102.032221
arXiv:1912.07554

[30] G. Zauner Quantendesigns. Grundzüge einer nichtkommutativen Design-theorie'' thesis (1999) Published in English translation: G. Zauner, "Quantum designs: foundations of a noncommutative design theory," International Journal of Quantum Information, vol. 9, pp. 445–508, 2011.
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1142/​S0219749911006776

[31] J. M. Renes, R. Blume-Kohout, A. J. Scott, and C. M. Caves, Symmetric Informationally Complete Quantum Measurements'' Journal of Mathematical Physics 45, 2171–2180 (2004).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.1737053

[32] C. A. Fuchs, M. C. Hoang, and B. C. Stacey, The SIC question: History and state of play'' Axioms 6, 21 (2017).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.3390/​axioms6030021
arXiv:1703.07901

[33] Howard Barnum Information-disturbance tradeoff in quantum measurement on the uniform ensemble and on the mutually unbiased bases'' (2002).

[34] Paul Buschand Pekka Lahti Lüders Rule'' Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2009).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-3-540-70626-7_110

[35] Markus Grassl (2021) In preparation.

[36] Robin Blume-Kohout Optimal, reliable estimation of quantum states'' New Journal of Physics 12, 043034 (2010).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1088/​1367-2630/​12/​4/​043034

[37] Persi Diaconis, Susan Holmes, and Richard Montgomery, Dynamical Bias in the Coin Toss'' SIAM Review 49, 211–235 (2007).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1137/​S0036144504446436

[38] Rüdiger Schack, Todd A. Brun, and Carlton M. Caves, Quantum Bayes rule'' Physical Review A 64, 014305 (2001).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.64.014305

[39] R. L. Hudsonand G. R. Moody Locally normal symmetric states and an analogue of de Finetti's theorem'' Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete 33, 343–351 (1976).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF00534784

[40] Carlton M. Caves, Christopher A. Fuchs, and Rüdiger Schack, Unknown quantum states: The quantum de Finetti representation'' Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 4537–4559 (2002).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.1494475

[41] David A. Meyer Quantum Strategies'' Physical Review Letters 82, 1052–1055 (1999).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.82.1052

[42] M. Allais Le Comportement de l'Homme Rationnel devant le Risque: Critique des Postulats et Axiomes de l'Ecole Americaine'' Econometrica 21, 503 (1953).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2307/​1907921

[43] Herbert A. Simon Administrative behavior: a study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations'' Free Press (1997).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1093/​oxfordhb/​9780199646135.013.22

[44] Richard H. Thalerand Cass R. Sunstein Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness'' Penguin Books (2009).

[45] Daniel Kahnemanand Amos Tversky Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk'' Econometrica 47, 263 (1979).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2307/​1914185

[46] Amos Tverskyand Daniel Kahneman Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty'' Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5, 297–323 (1992).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF00122574

[47] C. van Fraassen Belief and the Will'' The Journal of Philosophy 81, 235 (1984).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2307/​2026388

[48] Brian Skyrms Dynamic Coherence and Probability Kinematics'' Philosophy of Science 54, 1–20 (1987).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1086/​289350

[49] Michael Nielsenand Rush T. Stewart Persistent Disagreement and Polarization in a Bayesian Setting'' The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72, 51–78 (2021).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1093/​bjps/​axy056

[50] Christopher A. Fuchsand Rü̈diger Schack Priors in Quantum Bayesian Inference'' AIP Conference Proceedings 255–259 (2009).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1063/​1.3109948

[51] Robert J. Aumann Agreeing to Disagree'' The Annals of Statistics 4 (1976).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1214/​aos/​1176343654

[52] John D Geanakoplosand Heraklis M Polemarchakis We can't disagree forever'' Journal of Economic Theory 28, 192–200 (1982).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​0022-0531(82)90099-0

[53] Scott Aaronson The complexity of agreement'' Proceedings of the thirty-seventh annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing - STOC '05 634 (2005).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1145/​1060590.1060686

[54] V.I. Yukalovand D. Sornette Quantum decision theory as quantum theory of measurement'' Physics Letters A 372, 6867–6871 (2008).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.physleta.2008.09.053

[55] Andrei Khrennikov `Quantum Bayesianism as the basis of general theory of decision-making'' Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 374, 20150245 (2016).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1098/​rsta.2015.0245

### Cited by

On Crossref's cited-by service no data on citing works was found (last attempt 2022-07-05 04:56:48). On SAO/NASA ADS no data on citing works was found (last attempt 2022-07-05 04:56:49).