A QP Framework: A Contextual Representation of Agents’ Preferences in Investment Choice
Studies in Computational Intelligence, ISSN: 1860-9503, Vol: 898, Page: 99-113
2021
- 2Citations
- 9Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Book Chapter Description
Contextual decisions and beliefs and their impact upon market outcomes are at the core of research in behavioural finance. We describe some of the notable probabilistic fallacies that underpin investor behaviour and the consequent deviation of asset prices from the rational expectations equilibrium. In real financial markets, the complexity of financial products and the surrounding ambiguity calls for a more general formalization of agents belief formation than offered by the standard probability theory and dynamic models based on classical stochastic processes. The main advantage of quantum probability (QP) is that it can capture contextuality of beliefs through the notion of non-commuting prospect observables. QP has the potential to model myopia in asset return evaluation, as well as inter-asset valuation. Moreover, the interference term of the agents’ comparison state can provide a quantitative description of their vacillating ambiguity perception characterized by non-additive beliefs of agents. Some of the implications of non-classicality in beliefs for the composite market outcomes can also be modelled with the aid of QP. As a final step we also discuss the contributions of the growing body of psychological studies that reveal a true (quantum type) contextuality in human preference statistics showing that the classical probability theory is too restrictive to capture the very strong non-classical correlations between preference outcomes and beliefs.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85096230463&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48853-6_7; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-48853-6_7; http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-48853-6_7; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48853-6_7; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-48853-6_7
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know