arXiv:1508.06586v1 [q-fin.CP] 26 Aug 2015

Financial Market Modeling with Quantum
Neural Networks
Carlos Pedro Gonçalves
August 27, 2015
Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas (ISCSP) - University of
Lisbon, E-mail: cgoncalves@iscsp.ulisboa.pt

Abstract
Econophysics has developed as a research field that applies the formalism of Statistical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics to address
Economics and Finance problems. The branch of Econophysics that
applies of Quantum Theory to Economics and Finance is called Quantum Econophysics. In Finance, Quantum Econophysics’ contributions
have ranged from option pricing to market dynamics modeling, behavioral finance and applications of Game Theory, integrating the empirical finding, from human decision analysis, that shows that nonlinear
update rules in probabilities, leading to non-additive decision weights,
can be computationally approached from quantum computation, with
resulting quantum interference terms explaining the non-additive probabilities. The current work draws on these results to introduce new
tools from Quantum Artificial Intelligence, namely Quantum Artificial Neural Networks as a way to build and simulate financial market
models with adaptive selection of trading rules, leading to turbulence
and excess kurtosis in the returns distributions for a wide range of
parameters.
Keywords: Finance, Econophysics, Quantum Artificial Neural
Networks, Quantum Stochastic Processes, Cognitive Science

1

1

Introduction

One of the major problems of financial modeling has been to address complex financial returns dynamics, in particular, excess kurtosis and volatilityrelated turbulence which lead to statistically significant deviations from the
Gaussian random walk model worked in traditional Financial Theory (Arthur
et al., 1997; Voit, 2001; Ilinsky, 2001; Focardi and Fabozzi, 2004). A main
contribution of Econophysics to Finance has been to address this problem using the tools from Statistical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics, within the
paradigmatic basis of Systems Science and Complexity Sciences (Anderson
et al., 1988; Arthur et al., 1997; Voit, 2001; Ehrentreich, 2008).
Econophysics is currently a major research area that has combined interdisciplinarily Finance and Economics, Complex Systems Science, Statistical
Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics and Cognitive Science to address notions
and problems in Economics and Finance (Anderson et al., 1988; Arthur et
al., 1997; Voit, 2001; Brunn, 2006; Ehrentreich, 2008; Piotrowski and Sladkowski, 2001, 2002, 2008; Saptsin and Soloviev, 2009, 2011).
There are two major branches in Econophysics: Classical Econophysics
(based on Classical Mechanics) and Quantum Econophysics (based on Quantum Mechanics). In Finance, Quantum Econophysics has been applied to
option pricing (Segal and Segal, 1998; Baaquie et al., 2000; Baaquie and
Marakani, 2001; Baaquie, 2004; Baaquie and Pan, 2011), financial turbulence
modeling (Gonçalves, 2011, 2013) and as an approach to the formulation of
financial theory, regarding price formation and basic market relations (Piotrowski and Sladkowski, 2001, 2002, 2008; Khrennikov, 2010; Haven and
Khrennikov, 2013; Gonçalves, 2011, 2013). Choustova (2007a,b), in particular, argued for the introduction of a quantum-based approach to Financial
Theory as a way to incorporate market cognition dynamics in financial price
formation.
The quantum-based approach goes, however, beyond a good match to
price dynamics and turbulence modeling. The growing empirical evidence of
quantum interference signatures in human cognition, when faced with decision problems, has led to the development of a Quantum Theory-based Cognitive Science forming a theoretical ground for Econophysics modeling, with
strong implications for Finance (Busemeyer and Franco, 2010; Busemeyer
and Bruza, 2012; Wang and Busemeyer, 2013; Busemeyer and Wang, 2014;
Khrennikov, 2010; Haven and Khrennikov, 2013; Zuo, 2014; Khrennikov and
Basieva, 2014).
2

The main research problem regarding Quantum Theory-based Cognitive
Science applied to Finance can be expressed as follows: if there is emprical
support to the fact that human cognition, in decision problems, leads to a
decision behavior computationally isomorphic to quantum adaptive computation (Busemeyer and Franco, 2010; Busemeyer and Bruza, 2012; Wang and
Busemeyer, 2013; Busemeyer and Wang, 2014; Zuo, 2014; Khrennikov and
Basieva, 2014; Gonçalves, 2015), then, the modeling of financial market dynamics needs to work with models of behavior that incorporate, in their probabilistic description, quantum interference terms (Khrennikov, 2010; Haven
and Khrennikov, 2013).
This main research problem has led to the growth and development of
research lines on Cognitive Science, working from Quantum Computer Science and Quantum Information Theory, with direct implications in Finance
and Economics, supporting the expansion of Quantum Econophysics (Khrennikov, 2010; Haven and Khrennikov, 2013), in particular, in regards to Finance: opening up the way for research on Quantum Artificial Intelligence
(QuAI) applications to financial market modeling (Gonçalves, 2011, 2013).
The current work contributes to such research by introducing Quantum
Artificial Neural Networks (QuANNs) for financial market dynamics and
volatility risk modeling. In particular, recurrent QuANNs are used to build
a model of financial market dynamics that incorporates quantum interference and quantum adaptive computation in the probabilistic description of
financial returns. The resulting model shows a quantum-based selection of
adaptive rules with consequences for the market dynamics, leading to excess
kurtosis and turbulence with clustering volatility, price jumps and statistically significant deviations from Gaussian distributions, for a wide range of
parameters.
The work is divided in two parts that are developed in sections 2 and
3. In section 2, the QuANN model is built, simulated and studied, while,
in section 3, a reflection is provided on the possible role and contributions
of QuAI applied to financial modeling. Regarding the main work, which
is developed in section 2, the structure of this section is divided in three
subsections.
In subsection 2.1, we review a general framework for Classical Econophysics modeling of financial market price formation in which Farmer’s market making model (Farmer, 2002) is reviewed and combined with multiplicative components, namely: multiplicative volatility components and a market polarization component are introduced in the market making model and
3

linked to trading volume and bullish versus bearish polarization.
In subsection 2.2, we introduce the general formalism of QuANNs, including main notions that form the groundwork for the financial market model. In
subsection 2.3, we build the financial market model using a Quantum Neural
Automaton (QuNA) structure and simulate the resulting artificial financial
market, addressing its main results in regards to turbulence and volatility
risk, leading to statistically significant deviations from the Gaussian returns
distribution.
In section 3, the problem of deviations from the Gaussian random walk
is addressed in its relation to Econophysics and Nonlinear Stochastic Models
of market dynamics, allowing for a reflection on the possible contributions
of QuAI and QuANNs for establishing a bridge between the evidence of
quantum interference patterns observed in human decision making and a
computational basis for nonlinear probability dynamics in Finance coming
from a linear unitary evolution of networked quantum computation.

2

A QuANN-Based Financial Market Model

2.1

Price Formation and Financial Returns

Following Farmer (2002) and Ilinski (2001), financial market price formation
can be linked to unbalanced market orders M , where M > 0 corresponds to
an excess demand while M < 0 to an excess supply, such that, for a financial
risky asset, traded at discrete trading rounds of duration 4t, the asset price
at t, S(t) depends upon the previous price S(t − 4t) and the market orders
that arrive during the trading round. A few basic assumptions, in Classical
Econophysics, determine the structure for the relation between market orders
and the new price (Farmer, 2002; Ilinsky, 2001):
• The price is assumed as a finite increasing function of the previous price
and order size M (t):
S(t) = fS (S(t − 4t), M (t))

(1)

• If the order size is null M (t) = 0 the market clears for equal supply and
demand, so that there is no market impact (the price stays unchanged):
fS (S(t − 4t), 0) = S(t − 4t)
4

(2)

• There are no arbitrage opportunities associated with a sequence of
trades that sum zero (a repeated trading through a circuit);
• Gauge invariance with respect to currency units, so that the only possible combination for prices to enter is S(t)/S(t − 4t), such that:
fS (S(t − 4t), M (t))
S(t)
=
= F (M (t))
S(t − 4t)
S(t − 4t)

(3)

The result of these four assumptions is the general form for F in Eq.(3) given
by (Farmer, 2002; Ilinsky, 2001):
F (M (t)) = e

M (t)
λ

(4)

where λ is a liquidity parameter, also called market depth (Farmer, 2002).
The result from Eq.(4), replaced in Eq.(3) is the following dynamical rule:
S(t) = S(t − 4t)e

M (t)
λ

(5)

or, taking the logarithms, the log-price rule (Farmer, 2002; Ilinski, 2001):
ln S(t) = ln S(t − 4t) +

M (t)
λ

(6)

There are two dynamical components to M (t): the sign, which can either
be positive (excess of buy orders) or negative (excess of sell orders), and the
volume of unbalanced market orders, which is linked to the order size.
Within financial theory, the order size can be worked from a systemic
market dynamics that leads to the formation of consensus clusters regarding
the decision to invest greater or smaller amounts, or, alternatively, to sell
greater or smaller amounts. The adaptive management of exposure to asset
price fluctuation risk, on the part of market agents, given information that
impacts asset value leads to a two-sided aspect of computation of financial
information by the market system: on the one hand, there is the matter
whether each new information is good (bullish) or bad (bearish), in terms of
asset value, on the other hand, there is the degree to which new information
supports the decision to buy or sell by different amounts (the market volume
aspect).
A social consensus dynamics coming from market computation can be
linked to consensus clusters affecting the market unbalance, so that the positive or negative sign can be addressed, within Econophysics, in terms of a
5

notion of spin. In Physics the spin is a fundamental degree of freedom of
field quanta that behaves like angular momentum, the spin quantum numbers assume integer and half-integer values, the most elementary case of half
integer spin is the spin-1/2.
Considering a three dimensional axes system, if a spin-1/2 particle’s spin
state is measured along the z-axis then there are two fundamental orientations spin up and spin down, in Complex Systems Science these two orientations are assumed and worked mainly from the statistical mechanics of Ising
systems as models of complex systems (Kauffman, 1993), which constituted
early inspiration for Econophysics models of financial markets (Vaga, 1990;
Iiori, 1999; Lux and Marchesi, 1999; Voit, 2001). These models allowed for
the study of polarization in market sentiment, working with the statistical
mechanics of Ising systems, allowing direct connections to Cognitive Science
(Voit, 2001).
The market volume, on the other hand, has been addressed, within Financial Theory, by multiplicative processes (Mandelbrot, et al., 1997; Mandelbrot, 1997), drawing upon Mandelbrot’s work on turbulence in Statistical
Mechanics, as reviewed in Mandelbrot (1997). The multiplicative stochastic
processes, worked by Mandelbrot and connected to multifractal geometry, led
to Mandelbrot et al.’s (1997) Multifractal Model of Asset Returns (MMAR),
which also inspired modified versions using multiplicative stochastic processes
with Markov switching in volatility components (Calvet and Fisher, 2004;
Lux, 2008).
Considering Eq.(6), a spin-1/2 like model can be integrated as a binary
component in a multiplicative model that includes market volume, by way of
a multiplictive decomposition of M (t) in a market polarization component
σ(t) = ±1, and N trading volume-related volatility components, so that we
obtain:
!
N
Y
M (t) =
Vk (t) σ(t)
(7)
k=1

where each volatility component Vk (t) can assume one of two values v0 or
v1 = 2 − v0 . If 0 < v0 ≤ 1, then v0 corresponds to a low volatility state,
while v1 to a high volatility state (v0 diminishes the returns’ value while v1
amplifies the returns value like a lever). The logarithmic returns for the risky
asset, in this approach, are given by:

6

R(t) = ln

S(t)
1
=
S(t − 4t)
λ

N
Y

!
Vk (t) σ(t)

(8)

k=1

The binary structure assumed for the N components plus the market polarization, makes this model a good starting point for QuANN applications,
since QuANNs also work from a binary computational basis to address neural
firing patterns.
On the other hand, QuANNs open up the possibility for dealing with
the multiplicative models in such a way that the probabilities, rather than
being introduced from a top-down ex-ante fixed state-transition probability
distribution, change from trading round to trading round, being the result of
the quantum computational process introduced for each returns’ component.
QuANNs also allow one to incorporate the empirical evidence that human
cognition, when addressing decision between alternatives, follows a dynamics
that is computationally isomorphic to quantum computation applied to Decision Science, leading to interference effects with an expression in decision
frequencies (probabilities), which means that, when considering probabilities for human behavior, the theoretical framework of networked quantum
computation may be more appropriate for the dynamical modeling of human
systems.
In the quantum description, Eq.(8) will be expressed in operator form on
an appropriate Hilbert space, with the returns operator eigenvalues being addressed from the QuANN structure, which works with quantum bits (qubits),
whose computational basis states decribe the neuron’s firing pattern in terms
of firing (ON) and non-firing (OFF)1 . In order to build the market model,
however, we need to introduce, first, a general framework for QuANNs which
will then be applied to the risky asset price dynamics modeling.

2.2

Quantum Artificial Neural Networks

The connection between Quantum Computer Science and ANNs has been
object of research since the 1990s, in particular, in what regards quantum
associative memory, quantum parallel processing, extension of classical ANN
schemes, as well as computational complexity and efficiency of QuANNs
over classical ANNs (Chrisley, 1995; Kak, 1995; Menneer and Narayanan,
1

This degree of freedom behaves like spin, so that the neuron’s associated qubit can
also be approached in terms of a spin-1/2 model.

7

1995; Behrman et al., 1996; Menneer, 1998; Ivancevic and Ivancevic, 2010;
Gonçalves, 2015).
Mathematically, a classical ANN with a binary firing pattern can be defined as an artificial networked computing system comprised of a directed
graph with the following additional structure (McCulloch and Pitts, 1943;
Müller et al., 1995):
• A binary alphabet A2 = {0, 1} associated to each neuron describing the
neural activity, with 0 corresponding to a non-firing neural state and 1
to a firing neural state, so that the firing patterns of a neural network
with N neurons are expressed by the set of all binary strings of length
N : AN
2 = {s1 s2 ...sN : sk ∈ A2 , k = 1, 2, ..., N };
• A real-valued weight associated with each neural link, expressing the
strength and type of neural connection;
• A transfer function which determines the state transition of the neuron
and that depends upon the state of its incident neurons, the weight
associated with each incoming neural links and an activation threshold
that can be specific for each neuron.
A quantum version of ANNs, on the other hand, can be defined as a directed
graph with a networked quantum computing structure, such that (Gonçalves,
2015):
• To each neuron is associated a two-dimensional Hilbert Space H2 spanned
by the computational basis B2 = {|0i , |1i}, where |0i , |1i are ket vectors (in Dirac’s bra-ket notation for Quantum Mechanics’ vector-based
formalism using Hilbert spaces2 ), where |0i encodes a non-firing neural
dynamics and |1i encodes a firing neural dynamics;
• To a neural network, comprised of N neurons, is associated the tensor
product of N copies of H2 , so that the neural network’s Hilbert space
2

We use the vector representation convention introduced by Dirac (1967) for Hilbert
spaces, assumed and used extensively in Quantum Mechanics. In this case, a ket vector,
represented as |ai, is a column vector of complex numbers while a bra vector, represented
†
as ha|, is the conjugate transpose of |ai, that is: ha| = |ai . The Hilbert space inner
product is represented as (|ai , |bi) = ha|bi. The outer product is, in turn, given by |ai hb|.
A projection operator corresponds to an operator of the form P̂a = |ai ha| which acts on
any ket |bi as P̂a |bi = ha|bi |ai.

8


is the space H2⊗N spanned by the basis B2⊗N = |si : s ∈ AN
2
encodes all the alternative firing patterns of the neurons;

which

• The general neural configuration state of the neural network is characterized by a normalized ket vector |ψi ∈ H2⊗N expanded in the neural
firing pattterns’ basis B2⊗N as:
X
|ψi =
ψ(s) |si
(9)
s∈AN
2

with the normalization condition:
X
|ψ(s)|2 = 1

(10)

s∈AN
2

• The neural network has an associated neural links state transition operator L̂N et such that, given an input neural state |ψin i, the operator
transforms the input state for the neural network in an output state
|ψout i, reflecting, in this operation, the neural links for the neural network, so that each neuron has an associated structure of unitary operators that is conditional on its input neurons:
|ψout i = L̂N et |ψin i

(11)

The output state of a QuANN shows, in general, complex quantum correlations so that the quantum dynamics of a single neuron may depend in a
complex way on the entire neural network’s configuration (Gonçalves, 2015).
Considering the neurons n1 , ..., nN for a N -neuron neural network, the L̂N et
operator can be expressed as a product of each neuron’s neural links operator
following the ordered sequence n1 , ..., nN , where neuron n1 is the first to be
updated and nN the last (that is, following the activation sequence3 ):
L̂N et = L̂N ...L̂2 L̂1

(12)

each neuron’s neural links operator is a quantum version of an activation
function, with the following structure for the k-th neuron:
X
L̂k =
|si hs| ⊗ Lk (sin ) ⊗ |s0 i hs0 |
(13)
−k
s∈Ak−1
,s0 ∈AN
2
2

3

For some QuANNs it is possible to consider the action of the operators conjointly and
to introduce, in one single neural links operator, a transformation of multiple neurons’
states, taking advantage of parallel quantum computation (Gonçalves, 2015).

9

where sin is a substring, taken from the binary word ss0 , that matches in
ss0 the activation pattern for the input neurons of nk , under the neural network’s architecture, in the same order and binary sequence as it appears in
ss0 , Lk (sin ) is a neural links function that maps the input substring to a unitary operator on the two-dimensional Hilbert space H2 , this means that, for
different configurations of the neural network, the neural links operator for
the k-th neuron L̂k assigns a corresponding unitary operator that depends
upon the activation pattern of the input neurons.
The neural links operators incorporate the local structure of neural connections so that there is a unitary state transition for the neuron (a quantum
computation) conditional upon the firing pattern of its input neurons.
Now, an arbitrary unitary operator on a single-qubit Hilbert space H2
is a member of the unitary group U(2) and can be derived from a specific
Hamiltonian operator structure (Greiner and Müller, 2001), so that we have,
for a QuANN, a conditional unitary state transition:
i

Lk (sin ) := e− ~ 4tĤsin

(14)

where the neuron’s associated Hamiltonian operator Ĥsin is conditional on
the input neurons’ firing pattern sin and given by the general structure:
Ĥsin = −

3
X
ω(sin )
~
~1̂ + θ(sin )
uj (sin ) σ̂j
2
2
j=1

(15)

where ~ is the reduced Planck constant4 , θ(sin ), ω(sin ) are measured in radians per second and depend upon the neural configuration for the input
neurons, 1̂ is the unit operator on H2 , the uj (sin ) terms are the components
of a real unit vector u(sin ) and σ̂j are Pauli’s operators5 :


0 1
σ̂1 = |0i h1| + |1i h0| =
(16)
1 0


0 −i
σ̂2 = −i |0i h1| + i |1i h0| =
(17)
i 0


1 0
σ̂3 = |0i h0| − |1i h1| =
(18)
0 −1
1.054571800(13) × 10−34 Js
The terms (~/2)σ̂j , in the Hamiltonian, are equivalent to the spin operators for a
spin-1/2 system (Leggett, 2002).
4

5

10

Replacing Eq.(15) in Eq.(14) and expanding we obtain:
i

= ei

ω(sin )4t
2

Lk (sin ) = e− ~ 4tĤsin =
" 
#


 3
θ(sin )4t
θ(sin )4t X
cos
1̂ − i sin
uj (sin )σ̂j
2
2
j=1

(19)

where 1̂ = |0i h0|+|1i h1| is the unit operator on H2 . The operator in Eq.(19)
is comprised of the product of a phase transformation exp (iω(sin )4t/2) and a
rotation operator defined as (Greiner and Müller, 2001; Nielsen and Chuang,
2003):


 3

θ(sin )4t X
θ(sin )4t
1̂ − i sin
uj (sin )σ̂j
R̂u(sin ) [θ(sin ), 4t] = cos
2
2
j=1
(20)
An arbitrary single-qubit unitary operator (a quantum logic gate on a qubit)
can, thus, be expressed by the product (Nielsen and Chuang, 2003):


ω(sin )4t
− ~i Ĥsin 4t
(21)
e
R̂u(sin ) [θ(sin )4t]
= exp i
2
This means that the transfer function of classical ANNs is replaced, for
QuANNs, by phase transforms and rotations of the neuron’s quantum state
conditional upon the firing pattern of the input neurons6 .
Now, given an operator Ô on the neural network’s Hilbert space H2⊗N
expanded as:
X
Os,s0 |si hs0 |
(22)
Ô =
s,s0 ∈AN
2

taking the inner product between a normalized ket vector |ψi and the transformed vector Ô |ψi yields :

 D
E
|ψi , Ô |ψi = ψ Ô ψ =
X
=
Os,s0 hs0 |ψi hψ|si =
(23)
s,s0 ∈AN
2
X
=
Os,s0 ψ(s0 )ψ(s)∗
s,s0 ∈AN
2
6

This leads to quantum correlations that reflect the neural network’s structure
(Gonçalves, 2015).

11

For Hermitian operators obeying the relation:
Os,s0 hs0 |ψi hψ|si δs,s0

(24)

given that the state vector is normalized, if this relation is verified, then
Eq.(23) yields a classical expectation in which the amplitudes in square modulus |ψ(s)|2 are equivalent to decision weights associated with each alternative
value on the diagonal of the operator’s matrix representation:
D E
D
E
X
Ô = ψ Ô ψ =
Os,s |ψ(s)|2
(25)
ψ

s∈AN
2

so that, for a neural network in the state |ψi, the neural activity can be
described by the value Os,s with an associated weight of |ψ(s)|2 .
In the case of Econophysics, as well as Game Theory applications, one
usually assumes that the social system tends to the alternatives in proportion
to the corresponding decision weights, such that one can associate a probability measure for the system to follow each alternative as numerically coincident to the corresponding decision weight. This is akin to Game Theory’s
notion of mixed strategy, in the sense that each player can be characterized
by a fixed mixed strategy and play probabilistically according to the mixed
strategy’s weights.
While the probability of a player’s behavior is zero or one after play, the
decision weights remain the same, in the case of Game Theory this means
that the Nash equilibrium does not change, being available as a cognitive
strategic scheme for further plays (Nash, 1951). In applications of QuANNs
to social systems this means that one needs to work with either an Everettian
interpretation of Quantum Theory, or with a Bohmian interpretation7 .
The Bohmian interpretation is often assumed by researchers dealing with
Econophysics (Choustova, 2007a,b; Khrennikov, 2010; Haven and Khrennikov, 2013), in particular, when one wishes to address the amplitudes in
square modulus |ψ(s)|2 in terms of economic forces linked to emergent degrees
of freedom that tend to make the system follow certain paths probabilistically
(a quantum-based probabilistic version of Haken’s slaving principle applied
to economic and financial systems (Haken, 1977)).
The Everettian line of interpretations has, since its initial proposal by Everett (1957, 1973), been directly linked to a Cybernetics’ paradigmatic basis
7

Since these are the two lines of interpretation that do not assume a state vector
collapse.

12

incorporating both Automata Theory and Information Theory (Gonçalves,
2015), a point that comes directly from Everett’s original work on Quantum
Mechanics, that is further deepened by Deutsch’s work on Quantum Computation (Deutsch, 1985), and, later, on Quantum Decision Theory (Deutsch,
1999; Wallace, 2002, 2007).
There are actually different perspectives from different authors on Everett’s original proposal (Bruce, 2004). Formally, the proposal is close to
Bohm’s, including the importance attributed to computation and to Information Theory, however, systemically, Bohm and Everett are very distinct
in the hypotheses they raise: for Bohm the state vector is assumed to represent a statistical average of an underlying information field’s sub-quantum
dynamics (Bohm, 1984; Bohm and Hiley, 1993), Everett (1957, 1973) assumes the geometry of the Hilbert space as the correct description of the
fundamental dynamics of fields and systems.
Considering QuANNs, under Everett’s approach, and working from the
state vector, wen can introduce the set
o of projection operators onto the ba⊗N
N
sis B2 , P = P̂s = |si hs| : s ∈ A2 where each operator has the matrix
representation Ps,s0 = δs,s0 , these operators form a complete set of orthogonal projectors,
since their sum equals the unit operator on the Hilbert space
P
⊗N
H2 , s∈AN P̂s = 1̂⊗N , and they are mutually exclusive, that is, the product
2

of two of these operators obeys the relation δs,s0 P̂s P̂s0 .
A projection operator can represent a projective computation, by the
neural network, of an alternative neural firing pattern for the network. The
general state vector in Eq.(9) can, thus, be expressed as a sum of projections,
that is, the neural network’s quantum state has a projective expression over
each alternative neural configuration simultaneously, corresponding to a simultaneous systemic projective activity over all alternatives:
X
P̂s |ψi
(26)
|ψi =
s∈AN
2

Each alternative neural configuration corresponds to an orthogonal dimension
of the 2N dimensional Hilbert space H2⊗N , a dimension that is spanned by a
corresponding basis vector in B2⊗N , which means that the quantum system
(in our case, the QuANN) projects simultaneously over each (orthogonal)
dimension of systemic activity (corresponding, in our case, to each alternative
neural pattern) weighing each dimension. The wheight of the projection over
a given dimension (a given pattern of systemic activity) in the system’s state
13

can be worked from a notion of norm. Using the Hilbert space’s inner product
structure, we can work with the squared norm of the projected vector, which
leads to:
D
E
2
P̂s |ψi = (P̂s |ψi , P̂s |ψi) = ψ P̂s† P̂s ψ = |ψ(s)|2
(27)
Systemically, this last equation can be interpreted as expressing that the
weight of the projection P̂s , in the system’s projective dynamics, is equal to
|ψ(s)|2 . In this sense, each orthogonal dimension corresponds to a distinct
pattern of activity that is projectively computed by the system.
On the other hand, for a large ensemble of QuANNs with the same structure and in the same state, the statistical weightDassociated
to the projection
E
operator P̂s , expressed by the ensemble average P̂s , coincides with the projection weight |ψ(s)|2 associated to the neural state projection P̂s |ψi, thus,
the statistical interpretation comes directly from the projective structure of
the state vector. Indeed, let us consider a statistical ensemble of M QuANNs
such that each QuANN has the same number of neurons N and the same
architecture, let us, further, assume that each neural network is characterized
by some quantum neural state |ψk i, with k = 1, 2, ..., M , the ensemble state
can be represented by a statistical density operator:
ρ̂ =

M
1 X
|ψk i hψk |
M k=1

(28)

the statistical average of an operator Ô on the Hilbert space H2⊗N is given
by (Bransden and Joachain, 2000):
D E
Ô = T r(Ôρ̂) =
ρ̂

=

1
M

M
X

X

Os,s0 hs0 |ψk i hψk |si

k=1 s,s0 ∈AN
2

(29)

M
M
E
1 XD
1 XD E
=
ψk Ô ψk =
Ô
M k=1
M k=1
ψk

for a projector on the neural basis we get the ensemble average:
M
M
D E
E
1 XD
1 X
P̂s =
ψk P̂s ψk =
|ψk (s)|2
M k=1
M k=1
ρ̂

14

(30)

Now, if all the members of the ensemble are in the same neural state |ψk i =
|ψi for each k = 1, ..., M the whole statistical weight that is placed on the
projection coincides exactly with |ψ(s)|2 so that the ensemble average of
the projection coincides numerically with the degree to which the system
projects over the dimension corresponding to the neural pattern |si (the
2

projetion norm), that is, there is a numerical coincidence between P̂s |ψi
D E
and P̂s :
ρ̂

M
D E
1 X
|ψ(s)|2 = |ψ(s)|2
P̂s =
M k=1
ρ̂

(31)

Thus, an ensemble of QuANNs with the same structure, characterized
by the same quantum state |ψi, has a statistical weight for each projection
coincident with the norm of the projection, so that this norm has a statistical
expression once we consider an ensemble of systems with the same structure
and characterized by the same state. This is similar to the argument that
is made around repeated independent8 and identically prepared experiments
leading to a statistical distribution that shows the markers of the underlying
quantum dynamics, in that case, we also see a statistical ensemble marker
(considering an ensemble of experiments with the same state vector) that
recovers the projection norm structure in the statistical distribution.
The experiments, in the case of human systems, have led to the finding
of the same computational properties and projective dynamics present in
the quantum systems (Busemeyer and Franco, 2010; Busemeyer and Bruza,
2012; Wang and Busemeyer, 2013; Busemeyer and Wang, 2014), a finding
that comes from the statistical distribution of the experiments.
In an Econophysics setting, the projective dynamics can be addressed
as a cognitive projection such that the projection norm corresponds to the
decision weight placed on that alternative9 . The QuANN state transition
8

In the case of QuANNs this pressuposes the non-interaction between the ensemble
elements, appealing to a description of a statistical random sample.
9
In the quantum computational setting, under the Everettian line, the projective structure for QuANNs can be considered as a computational projection such that each Hilbert
space dimension, corresponding to a different neural pattern, is computed simultaneously
with an associated weight (given by the norm of the projection), having a computational
expression in the system’s quantum processing and a statistical correspondence in the
neural activity pattern of an ensemble of QuANNs with the same structure and in the
same state (assuming non-interaction between different ensemble elements).

15

has an implication in the projection weights, in the sense that given the
state transition:
X
|ψout i = L̂N et |ψin i =
ψout (s) |si ,
(32)
s∈AN
2

the output amplitudes are given by:
E
X D
X
0
ψout (s) =
s L̂N et s hs0 |ψin i =
LN et (s, s0 )ψin (s0 )
s0 ∈AN
2
0

(33)

s0 ∈AN
2

D

0

E

with LN et (s, s ) = s L̂N et s . Eq.(33) means that the following change in
the projections’ norms takes place:
2

P̂s |ψin i

= |ψin (s)|2 →
2

2

→ P̂s |ψout i

2

= |ψout (s)| =

X

0

(34)

0

LN et (s, s )ψin (s )

s0 ∈AN
2

The sum within the square modulus is a source of quantum interference at
the projection norm level.
An iterative scheme with the repeated application of the neural network
operator L̂N et leads to a sequence of quantum neural states |ψ(t)i. Expanding
the complex numbers associated to the quantum amplitudes:
p
p
hs|ψ(t)i = ψ(s, t) = A(s, t) + i B(s, t)
(35)
we can express the dynamical variables A(s, t) and B(s, t) in terms of a
dynamical nonlinear state transition rule:
 
2
X
A(s, t) = Re 
LN et (s, s0 )ψ(s0 , t − 4t)
(36)
s0 ∈AN
2

In the case of physical systems, the projective dynamics, interpreted computationally,
leads to a physical expression of the system at multiple dimensions of systemic activity,
a point which was interpreted by DeWitt (1970) under the notion of Many Worlds of a
same Universe, where each World corresponds to an entire configuration of the Universe
matching a corresponding orthogonal dimension of an appropriate Hilbert space where
observers and systems are correlated (entanglement).
In the case of applications to human decision-making, the orthogonal dimensions can be
assumed to correspond to alternative decision scenarios evaluated by the decision-maker
and supporting his/her choice.

16



2



B(s, t) = Im 

X

LN et (s, s0 )ψ(s0 , t − 4t)

(37)

s0 ∈AN
2

which leads to a 2N +1 system of nonlinear equations, from where it follows
that the probability associated to a given neural firing configuration, worked
from the expected projection (in accordance with the ensemble average), is
given by the sum of the two dynamical variables:
P rob[s, t] = A(s, t) + B(s, t)

(38)

This establishes a bridge between Nonlinear Dynamical Systems Theory
and quantum processing by QuANNs, with implications for financial modeling. Indeed, while, traditionally, in financial econometrics one can see the
distinction between a stochastic process (be it linear or nonlinear) and a
deterministic nonlinear dynamical system, in the case of QuANNs applied
to financial modeling they synthesize both approaches (stochastic and deterministic nonlinear), since the quantum state transition equations have a
corresponding expression in a nonlinear deterministic dynamical system for
probability measures assigned to the QuANN’s statistical description via the
correspondence between the projection norm dynamics and the statistical
expectation associated to the projection operator.
The QuANNs application to financial modeling, thus, allows us to address
the problem of simulating the resulting system dynamics that comes from a
human cognition where interference patterns are found in the probabilistic
description of human behavior.

2.3

A Quantum Market Model

Considering the financial case, a quantum regime switching model for the N
volatility components plus the market polarization component, introduced
in subsection 2.1, can be addressed through a Quantum Neural Automaton
(QNA), defined as a one dimensional lattice with a QuANN associated to
each lattice site, in this case we assume the lattice to have N + 1 sites and to
each site k, for k = 1, 2, ..., N + 1, is associated a QuANN with the following
structure:
n1 (k) → n2 (k)
- ↓↑
(39)
n3 (k)
17

The corresponding Hilbert space for each such neural network HN et (k) is H2⊗3
that is HN et (k) = H2⊗3 , for k = 1, 2, ..., N + 1, with the general basis vector
|s1 s2 s3 i, such that s1 characterizes the activity pattern of the first neuron
(n1 (k)), s2 characterizes the second neuron (n2 (k)) and s3 characterizes the
activity pattern of the third neuron (n3 (k)). In what follows, the neuron
n3 (k) encodes the market state for the corresponding component, n1 (k) encodes the new market conditions supporting the corresponding component’s
dynamics and n2 (k) addresses the computation of the synchronization pattern between n3 (k) (the market state for the component)
n1 (k) (the new
Nand
+1
market conditions). The QNA Hilbert space HQN A = N
k=1 HN et (k) is the
⊗3
tensor product of N +1 copies of the Hilbert space H2 . Assuming this structure for the QNA, we now begin by addressing the local neural dynamics and
its financial interpretation.
2.3.1

Local Neural Dynamics

Since the third neuron firing patterns encode the market state of the corresponding component, for the N volatility components, we have the neural
network market volatility operator on H2⊗3 :
ÔV |s1 s2 0i = v0 |s1 s2 0i

(40)

ÔV |s1 s2 1i = v1 |s1 s2 1i

(41)

while for the market polarization component we have the neural network
market polarization operator:
ÔP |s1 s2 0i = −1 |s1 s2 0i

(42)

ÔP |s1 s2 1i = +1 |s1 s2 1i

(43)

Since, as defined previously, v0 ≤ v1 , for a volatility neural network, when the
third neuron fires we have a high volatility state, and when it does not fire
we have a low volatility state. For the market polarization neural network,
when the third neuron fires we have a bullish market state and when it does
not fire we have a bearish market state.
Eqs.(40) to (43) show that both operators depend only on the third neuron’s firing pattern, which means that, using Dirac’s bra-ket notation, they
can be expanded, respectively, as:

18

!
ÔV = v0

X

|s1 s2 0i hs1 s2 0|

!
X

+ v1

s1 ,s2 ∈A2

|s1 s2 1i hs1 s2 1|

s1 ,s2 ∈A2

!
X

ÔP = −

(44)

|s1 s2 0i hs1 s2 0|

!
X

+

s1 ,s2 ∈A2

|s1 s2 1i hs1 s2 1|

(45)

s1 ,s2 ∈A2

Now, the neural network follows a closed loop starting at the market state
neuron (n3 (k)) and ending at the market state neuron. The final state transition amplitudes and the underlying financial dynamics will depend upon
the intermediate transformations which may change the profile of the corresponding component’s state transition structure.
To address the neural dynamics and its relation with the financial market
dynamics we need to introduce the neural links operators and follow the loop,
starting at n3 (k) and ending at n3 (k). Considering, then, the first neural link
n3 (k) → n1 (k), we introduce the following neural network operator for the
neuron n1 (k):
X
X i
i
L̂1 =
e− ~ 4tĤ0 ⊗ |si hs| ⊗ |0i h0| +
e− ~ 4tĤ1 ⊗ |s0 i hs0 | ⊗ |1i h1| (46)
s0 ∈A2

s∈A2

using Eq.(19) we need to define the angles θ(0), θ(1), ω(0), ω(1) and the
vectors u(0), u(1), we set, in this case:
θ(0)4t
π θ(1)4t
=φ+ ,
=φ
2
2
2

(47)

ω(0)4t
ω(1)4t
π
= π,
=
2
2
2
u(0) = u(1) = (1, 0, 0)

(48)
(49)

leading to the following operator structure:
− ~i 4tĤ0

e

− ~i 4tĤ1

e


= sin (φ) 1̂ + i cos (φ) σ̂1 =

= i cos (φ) 1̂ + sin (φ) σ̂1 =

sin (φ) i cos (φ)
i cos (φ) sin (φ)



i cos (φ) sin (φ)
sin (φ) i cos (φ)



the action of the operator L̂1 on the basis states is given by:
19

(50)
(51)

L̂1 |s1 s2 0i = sin (φ) |s1 s2 0i + i cos (φ) |1 − s1 s2 0i

(52)

L̂1 |s1 s2 1i = i cos (φ) |s1 s2 1i + sin (φ) |1 − s1 s2 1i

(53)

The operator L̂1 can be considered in terms of a quantum regime switching model, such that if the market state neuron n3 (k) is not firing, then,
sin (φ) is the amplitude associated to the alternative where the neuron n1 (k)
does not change state, while i cos (φ) is the amplitude associated to the alternative where the neuron n1 (k) changes state, on the other hand, if the neuron
n3 (k) is firing the role of the amplitudes flip: i cos (φ) is associated with the
alternative where the neuron n1 (k) does not change state and sin (φ) is the
amplitude associated with the alternative where the neuron n1 (k) changes
state.
Before considering the financial implications of this dynamics, it is necessary to address the rest of the network, because the final dynamics and its
financial implications can only be fully addressed at the end of the cycle. As
we will see, the end result will be a quantum computation-based selection
process of adaptive rules regarding market expectations and the processing
of how financial news may support trading decisions affecting market polarization and market volume.
Proceeding, then, with the neural links, the second neuron to be activated
is n2 (k), which receives an input from the two neurons n1 (k) and n3 (k),
this neuron will play a key role in the selection of adaptive rules regarding
the relation between trading profiles and financial news, a point that we
will return to when the final neural network state transition is analyzed.
Following the quantum circuit framework, the second neuron is transformed
conditionally on the states of the two neurons n1 (k) and n3 (k), in accordance
with the neural links n1 (k) → n2 (k) ← n3 (k), the corresponding neural links
operator is given by:
X
i
(54)
L̂2 =
|si hs| ⊗ e− ~ 4tĤss0 ⊗ |s0 i hs0 |
s,s0 ∈A2

When the input neurons have synchronized firing patterns, the rotation and
phase transformation angles are set to:
θ(00)4t
θ(11)4t
=
=0
2
2
ω(00)4t
ω(11)4t
=
=0
2
2
20

(55)
(56)

which means that the operators reduce to:
i

i

e− ~ 4tĤ00 = e− ~ 4tĤ11 = 1̂

(57)

that is, the second neuron remains in the same state when the input neurons (n1 (k) and n3 (k)) exhibit a synchronized firing pattern (no rotation nor
phase transformation takes place). When the input neurons do not exhibit a
synchronized firing pattern, the rotation and phase transformation is set by
the following parameters:
θ(10)4t
π
θ(01)4t
=
=
2
2
2
ω(10)4t
π
ω(01)4t
=
=
2
2
2
u(01) = u(10) = (1, 0, 0)
which leads to:

i

i

e− ~ 4tĤ01 = e− ~ 4tĤ10 = σ̂1

(58)
(59)
(60)
(61)

thus, the action of L̂2 on each basis state is such that:
L̂2 |ss2 si = |ss2 si

(62)

L̂2 |ss2 1 − si = |s1 − s2 1 − si

(63)

that is, the neuron n2 (k) does not change state when the two neurons n1 (k)
and n3 (k) have the same firing pattern, and flips state when the two neurons have differing firing patterns (this is equivalent to a controlled negation
quantum circuit).
Now, to close the cycle, and before addressing the final dynamics and
its financial interpretation, we have to address, first, the third link n2 (k) →
n3 (k). In this case, we also introduce a controlled-negation circuit, so that
the corresponding operator is:
X
X
i
i
|s0 i hs0 | ⊗ |1i h1| ⊗ e− ~ 4tĤ1 (64)
L̂3 =
|si hs| ⊗ |0i h0| ⊗ e− ~ 4tĤ0 +
s0 ∈A2

s∈A2

θ(0)4t
θ(1)4t
π
= 0,
=
2
2
2
ω(0)4t
ω(1)4t
π
= 0,
=
2
2
2
21

(65)
(66)

u(1) = (1, 0, 0)

(67)

leading to:
i

i

e− ~ 4tĤ0 = 1̂, e− ~ 4tĤ1 = σ̂1

(68)

so that the basis states transform as:
L̂3 |s1 0s3 i = |s1 0s3 i

(69)

L̂3 |s1 1s3 i = |s1 11 − s3 i

(70)

these equations show that the neuron n3 (k) changes state when the second
neuron is firing and does not change state when the second neuron is not firing. The neural network operator L̂N et is the product of the three operators,
that is:
L̂N et = L̂3 L̂2 L̂1

(71)

The following table shows the results of the action of the neural network
operator on each basis state.
Basis States
|000i
|001i
|010i
|011i
|100i
|101i
|110i
|111i

L̂N et |si = L̂3 L̂2 L̂1 |si
sin (φ) |000i + i cos (φ) |111i
i cos (φ) |010i + sin (φ) |101i
sin (φ) |011i + i cos (φ) |100i
i cos (φ) |001i + sin (φ) |110i
i cos (φ) |000i + sin (φ) |111i
sin (φ) |010i + i cos (φ) |101i
i cos (φ) |011i + sin (φ) |100i
sin (φ) |001i + i cos (φ) |110i

Table 1: Neural network operator’s action on the basis states.
From a financial perspective, table 1 synthesizes two adaptive rules, one
in which the new market state for the component follows the new market conditions underlying the corresponding component’s dynamics (neurons’ n1 (k)
and n3 (k) show a neural reinforcement dynamics), and another in which the
new market state is contrarian with respect to the new market conditions underlying the corresponding component’s dynamics (neurons’ n1 (k) and n3 (k)

22

show a neural inhibitory dynamics). These are two basic rules regarding expectation formation from new data: the decision to follow the new data or
not.
In the first case, and taking as example a volatility component, the market
is driven by an expectation of continuance of market conditions, so that, for
instance, if market conditions are favorable to a high volatility state (neuron
n1 (k) is firing), then, the new market state follows the market conditions and
n3 (k) fires, corresponding to high volatility.
On the other hand, still under the first adaptive rule, if market conditions
are unfavorable to a high volatility state (neuron n1 (k) is not firing), then,
the new market state follows the market conditions and n3 (k) does not fire,
corresponding to low volatility.
The resulting adaptive rule corresponds, thus, to a follow the news rule.
Likewise, if we consider, instead, the market polarization component, the
follow the news rule means that if the new market conditions support a
bullish market sentiment, then, the market becomes bullish and if the new
market conditions support a bearish market sentiment, then, the market
becomes bearish.
The second adaptive rule is the reverse, expectations are that the new
market conditions will not hold, and the market does the opposite from the
news, expecting speculative gains.
The first adaptive rule is implemented when the second neuron is not
firing, while the second rule is implemented when the second neuron is firing. Thus, the firing of the second neuron is a dynamical component that
simulates a market change in its expectation and trading profile, so that.
for the neural configurations {|000i , |001i , |100i , |101i}, the state transition
for the market component’s dynamics is driven by the first adaptive rule,
while, for the neural configurations {|010i , |011i , |110i , |111i}, the market
component’s dynamics is driven by the second adaptive rule.
While neuron n2 (k)’s firing pattern determines the selection of a follow the
news rule, the combination of firing patterns of the three neurons determines
the quantum amplitudes for the market state transitions. Thus, when the
neuron n2 (k) is not firing, if the initial market conditions are aligned with
the initial market state, then: sin (φ) is the amplitude associated with the
alternative in which n1 (k) and n3 (k) transition to a not firing state and
i cos (φ) is the amplitude associated with the alternative in which n1 (k) and
n3 (k) transition to a firing state.
For a market volatility component, this means that a transition to a high
23

volatility state, supported by market conditions, has an associated quantum
amplitude of i cos (φ), while a market transition to a low volatility, state
supported by market conditions, has an associated amplitude of sin (φ). The
role of these amplitudes switches when n1 (k) and n3 (k) are not initially
aligned.
When the neuron n2 (k) is firing, the transition amplitudes to firing/nonfiring states follow the same pattern as above for neuron n1 (k) but reverse
the pattern for neuron n3 (k) because the new market conditions’ neuron and
the market state neuron transition to a non-aligned state (the market is contrarian with respect to the news), so that, if n1 (k) and n3 (k) are initially
aligned, sin (φ) is the amplitude associated with a transition to the state
where n1 (k) is not firing and n3 (k) is firing, while, if n1 (k) and n3 (k) are not
initially aligned, the amplitude associated with such a transition is i cos (φ).
The roles of the amplitudes, thus, depend upon the way in which the market
adapts to new information and the previous configuration of market conditions and market state.
As expected, the market conditions and the market state neurons are always entangled, which means that, in each case, the market state effectively
becomes like a measurement apparatus of the market conditions, the entanglement profile can, however, be aligned (follow the news rule, based on an
expectation of sustainability of the new market conditions) or non-aligned
(contrarian rule, based on the expectation of reversal of the new market
conditions).
Thus, in the model, the quantum neural dynamics models a market that
processes the information on the market conditions implementing a standard quantum measurement, but the profile of that quantum measurement
depends upon the expectations regarding the news (leading to different entanglement profiles).
The final dynamics for the market component results from the iterative
application of the operator L̂N et for each trading round, leading to state transition between the adaptive rules and, thus, between the market states. Considering a sequence of neural states for the market component’s associated
neural network |ψ(k, t)i, the state transition resulting from the dynamical
rule is given by:
|ψ(k, t)i = L̂N et |ψ(k, t − 4t)i

(72)

leads to the following update rule for the quantum amplitudes ψk (as per the
24

general Eq.(33)):
ψk (s, t) =

XD

s L̂N et s

0

E

hs0 |ψ(k, t − 4t)i =

s0

=

X

LN et (s, s0 )ψk (s0 , t − 4t)

(73)

s0

using Table 1’s results, in conjunction with this last eqution, we obtain the
following transition table for the quantum amplitudes:
New Amplitudes
ψk (000, t) = sin (φ) ψk (000, t − 4t) + i cos (φ) ψk (100, t − 4t)
ψk (001, t) = i cos (φ) ψk (011, t − 4t) + sin (φ) ψk (111, t − 4t)
ψk (010, t) = i cos (φ) ψk (001, t − 4t) + sin (φ) ψk (101, t − 4t)
ψk (011, t) = sin (φ) ψk (010, t − 4t) + i cos (φ) ψk (110, t − 4t)
ψk (100, t) = i cos (φ) ψk (010, t − 4t) + sin (φ) ψk (110, t − 4t)
ψk (101, t) = sin (φ) ψk (001, t − 4t) + i cos (φ) ψk (101, t − 4t)
ψk (110, t) = sin (φ) ψk (011, t − 4t) + i cos (φ) ψk (111, t − 4t)
ψk (111, t) = i cos (φ) ψk (000, t − 4t) + sin (φ) ψk (100, t − 4t)
Table 2: Update of the quantum amplitudes for a single market component.
Taking into account this general neural dynamics for each component
we can now piece it all together to address the market state and resulting
financial dynamics.
2.3.2

Financial Market Dynamics

To address the full market dynamics we need to recover the QNA. For each
trading round, the quantum state associated with the market dynamics is
given by the QNA state defined as the tensor product of the lattice site’s
neural networks’ states, that is, by the tensor product of each component’s
neural network state:
N
+1
O
|ψ(t)i =
|ψ(k, t)i = Ψ(s1 , s2 , ..., sN +1 , t) |s1 , s2 , ..., sN +1 i
(74)
k=1

where the quantum amplitudes Ψ(s1 , s2 , ..., sN +1 , t) are given by:
Ψ(s1 , s2 , ..., sN +1 , t) =

N
+1
Y
k=1

25

ψk (sk , t)

(75)

with ψk being the amplitudes associated with the lattice site k’s neural network.
For the N volatility components we can introduce a corresponding volatility operator on the QNA Hilbert space:
Ôk = 1̂⊗k−1 ⊗ ÔV ⊗ 1̂⊗N +1−k

(76)

with k = 1, ..., N , where, as before, 1̂⊗m denotes m-tensor product of the
unit operator on H2 and ÔV is the volatility operator defined in Eqs.(40)
and (41). Similarly, for the market polarization operator, we write:
ÔN +1 = 1̂⊗N ⊗ ÔP

(77)

where ÔP is the market polarization operator defined in Eqs.(42) and (43).
In this way, the returns’ dynamical variable defined in Eq.(8) is replaced,
in the Quantum Econophysics setting, by a quantum operator on the QNA
Hilbert space defined as:
N +1
1 Y
Ôk
(78)
R̂ =
λ k=1
For each basis state of the QNA Hilbert space, the returns operator has an
eigenvalue given by the corresponding financial market returns:
R̂ |s1 , s2 , ..., sN +1 i = R(s1 , s2 , ..., sN +1 ) |s1 , s2 , ..., sN +1 i

(79)

with the eigenvalues R(s1 , s2 , ..., sN +1 ) given by:
N

1Y
R(s1 , s2 , ..., sN +1 ) =
vk (sk ) · σN +1 (sN +1 )
λ k=1

(80)

where vk (sk ) = v0 if the binary string sk ∈ A32 ends in 0 (n3 (k) is not firing)
and vk (sk ) = v1 if the binary string sk ends in 1 (n3 (k) is firing), similarly
σN +1 (sN +1 ) = −1 if sN +1 ∈ A32 ends in 0 (n3 (N + 1) is not firing) and
σN +1 (sN +1 ) = 1 if sN +1 ends in 1 (n3 (N + 1) is firing).
The dynamical rule that comes from the neural networks’ quantum computation leads to the market state transition for each trading round:
|ψ(t)i =

N
+1
O

L̂N et |ψ(k, t − 4t)i

k=1

26

(81)

leading to the expected value for the returns:
D E
X
R̂ =
R(s1 , s2 , ..., sN +1 ) |Ψ(s1 , s2 , ..., sN +1 , t)|2
t

(82)

s1 ,s2 ,...,sN +1

so that the market tends to the alternative R(s1 , s2 , ..., sN +1 ) with an associated probability of |Ψ(s1 , s2 , ..., sN +1 , t)|2 .
The following figure shows a market simulation on Python 3.4. In the
simulations, the initial state for each component is taken from a randomly
chosen U(2) gate applied to each neuron with uniform probability over U(2) .
The figure shows the markers of financial turbulence in the returns, including
volatility bursts and jumps.

Figure 1: Simulation of the financial returns for sin2 φ = 0.6, v0 = 0.7,
λ = 1000, 20 components (19 volatility components plus 1 polarization component). The figure shows 2000 data points of a 2100 data points simulation
with the first 100 points removed for transients.
The main parameters that determine the market profile with regards to
turbulence is v0 and the number of components, the turbulence profile does
not change much with respect to the rotation angle φ. Indeed, as shown in
the following table, the estimated kurtosis10 for different simulations with 20
components tends to decrease as v0 rises. For v0 = 0.9 we no longer find
excess kurtosis, the turbulence markers being lost. This approach to low
turbulence is progressive as v0 is raised from 0.8 to 0.9, such that that the
price jumps tend to become less severe and less frequent, and the volatility
10

The Fisher kurtosis is used in the statistical analysis of the model’s outputs.

27

bursts tend to disappear, as shown in Figure 2, in which v0 = 0.9 with the
rest of the parameters used in Figure 1’s simulation being left unchanged.

v0
v0
v0
v0
v0
v0

= 0.4
= 0.5
= 0.6
= 0.7
= 0.8
= 0.9

sin2 φ = 0.4

sin2 φ = 0.5

sin2 φ = 0.6

585.4546
778.0387
1015.5296
77.6054
6.8827
-0.8538

1336.6726
1876.3810
473.4505
49.5857
20.7037
-1.2335

1923.3159
783.0852
383.9775
56.8335
5.6217
-0.9277

Table 3: Kurtosis values for different values of sin2 φ and v0 . The other
parameters are: λ = 1000, 20 components (19 volatility components plus
1 polarization component), the Kurtosis coefficient was calculated on 5000
sample data points of a 5100 data points simulation with the first 100 data
points removed for transients.

Figure 2: Simulation of financial returns for sin2 φ = 0.6, v0 = 0.9, λ = 1000,
20 components (19 volatility components plus 1 polarization component).
The figure shows 2000 data points of a 2100 data points simulation with the
first 100 points removed for transients.
The model, thus, captures different market profiles: as the parameter v0
increases from 0.8 to 0.9 the simulations tend to approach a lower tail risk
dynamics, with a greater approximation to the classical Gaussian returns’
probability model ocurring for v0 near 0.87, the following table shows this
approximation with the kurtosis values and Jarque-Bera test for normality,
as the value of v0 is increased.
28

v0 = 0.85
v0 = 0.86
v0 = 0.87
v0 = 0.88
v0 = 0.89
v0 = 0.9

Kurtosis

JB Statistic

p-value

1.2911
0.3596
0.1746
-0.0160
-0.6790
-0.8223

353.7757
46.5669
6.3179
76.5797
106.5589
143.5983

0.0
7.7289e-11
0.0425
0.0
0.0
0.0

Table 4: Kurtosis values and Jarque-Bera test of normality for different values
v0 . The other parameters are: sin2 φ = 0.6, λ = 1000, 20 components (19
volatility components plus 1 polarization component), the Kurtosis coefficient
was calculated on 5000 sample data points of a 5100 data points simulation
with the first 100 data points removed for transients.
As shown in table 4 for every value of v0 the Jarque-Bera’s null hypothesis is rejected at 1% significance level except for v0 = 0.87. It is important
to stress however, that although simulated returns distribution can approximate the Gaussian distribution, this approximation is not robust, different
simulations for the same parameters may show deviations from the Gaussian
distribution.
The following table shows examples of simulations for different values of
the rotation angle φ, with v0 = 0.87, the null hypothesis of Jarque-Bera’s
test is not reject, at a 1% significance, for sin2 φ = 0.1, 0.3, 0.6, with sin2 φ =
0.1, 0.3 as the only cases in which it is not rejected for 5% significance,
and sin2 φ = 0.3 as the only case in which it is not rejected also for a 10%
significance.

29

sin2 φ Kurtosis JB Statistic
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9

0.1285
0.6385
0.0947
0.3169
0.9213
0.1746
0.0841
0.4975
0.1775

4.8697
84.4538
3.8794
35.1954
565.5135
6.3179
29.6076
65.859
31.3417

p-value
0.0876
0.0
0.1437
2.2773e-08
0.0
0.0425
3.7221e-07
4.9960e-15
1.5640e-07

Table 5: Kurtosis values for different values φ. The other parameters are:
v0 = 0.87 λ = 1000, 20 components (19 volatility components plus 1 polarization component), the Kurtosis coefficient was calculated on 5000 sample
data points of a 5100 data points simulation with the first 100 data points
removed for transients.
These results may, however, depend, as stated previously, upon the simulation, other simulations may show the null hypothesis being rejected for the
same parameters, which means that the Gaussian distribution depends upon
the sample path and is not a dynamically fixed probability law that can be
assumed to hold indefinitely.
The general tail risk pattern, on the other hand, is more robust than
the Gaussian approximation, in the sense that as v0 approaches 0.9 and
for v0 ≥ 0.9, the market loses the turbulence profile with the jumps and
volatility changes becoming less frequent and the kurtosis becoming less and
less leptokurtic, leading to lower tail risk, the market returns eventually
fluctuate randomly around a narrow band.
Underlying the complex behavior of the simulated market returns, is the
probability dynamics that comes from the neural network’s iterative scheme
shown in table 2. Considering Eqs.(35) to (37) and combining with table
2’s results we get, in this case, sixteen nonlinear dynamical equations of the
general form:
i2
hp
p
(83)
Ak (s0 , t − 4t) sin (φ) − Bk (s00 , t − 4t) cos (φ)
Ak (s, t) =
Bk (s, t) =

hp
i2
p
Bk (s0 , t − 4t) sin (φ) + Ak (s00 , t − 4t) cos (φ)
30

(84)

with s, s0 , s00 ∈ A32 and s0 6= s00 , so that the probability dynamics that come
from the neural network’s evolution can be addressed by a nonlinear map
with sixteen dynamical variables satisfying the normalization rule:
X
X
Ak (s, t) +
Bk (s0 , t) = 1
(85)
s

s0

with the probability of the neural configuration s being given by the sum:
P robk [s, t] = Ak (s, t) + Bk (s, t)

(86)

so that the probability distribution for the neural configurations is a function
of a sixteen dimensional nonlinear map on a hypersphere of unit radius (due
to the normalization condition).
If we expand the squares in Eqs.(83) and (84) we get:
Ak (s, t) = Ak (s0 , t − 4t) sin2 (φ) + Bk (s00 , t − 4t) cos2 (φ) −
p
− Ak (s0 , t − 4t)Bk (s00 , t − 4t) sin (2φ)

(87)

Bk (s, t) = Bk (s0 , t − 4t) sin2 (φ) + Ak (s00 , t − 4t) cos2 (φ) +
p
+ Bk (s0 , t − 4t)Ak (s00 , t − 4t) sin (2φ)

(88)

which leads to the following expansion for the probability:
P robk [s, t] =
= P robk [s , t − 4t] sin2 (φ) +
+P robk [s00 , t − 4t] cos2 (φ) +
0

(89)

p
+ Bk (s0 , t − 4t)Ak (s00 , t − 4t) sin (2φ) −
p
− Ak (s0 , t − 4t)Bk (s00 , t − 4t) sin (2φ)
the quantum interference terms (that correspond to the square root terms
multiplied by sin (2φ) in Eq.(89)) have an expression, at the probability level,
that can be approached in terms of a classical nonlinear dynamical system
for the probabilities.
In the classical nonlinear dynamics representation, each financial returns
component’s stochastic dynamics has a probability measure that updates at
each trading round with a deterministic nonlinear update rule, this establishes the bridge between the stochastic process and the nonlinear deterministic dynamical systems modeling of financial dynamics: the neural network’s
31

quantum dynamics leads to a nonlinear deterministic dynamics in the probabilities.
A question that may be raised regards the transition from the deterministic nonlinear map to a noisy nonlinear map, from the financial perspective
this makes sense since external stochastic factors may affect the financial
system. A possible solution for this might be to allow the rotation angle φ
to change, so that instead of a fixed value of φ we replace it by a random
variable φk (t) in Eqs.(83) and (84) so that we get a stochastic nonlinear dynamical system. The introduction of a random φk (t) implies that we are no
longer dealing with a fixed unitary operator structure for the QuANN but,
instead, work with a quantum neural state transition with a random component in the Hamiltonian, that is, the unitary gates of Eqs.(50) and (51) are
now stochastic unitary gates:


sin (φk (t)) i cos (φk (t))
− ~i 4tĤ0 (t)
=
(90)
e
i cos (φk (t)) sin (φk (t))


i cos (φk (t)) sin (φk (t))
− ~i 4tĤ1 (t)
=
(91)
e
sin (φk (t)) i cos (φk (t))
Thus, a stochastic nonlinear map is induced by the quantum noisy gates in
the QuANN’s state transition rule, coming from a stochastic Hamiltonian.
The following figure shows the simulation results for


1
φk (t) = arcsin √
(92)
1 + e−2βzk (t)
with zk (t) ∼ N (0, 1), which leads to:
sin2 (φk (t)) =

1
1 + e−2βzk (t)

(93)

e−2βzk (t)
(94)
1 + e−2βzk (t)
the logistic function present in Eqs.(93) and (94) is also widely used in classical ANNs for the activation probability and leaves room for expansion of
connections to Statistical Mechanics (Müller and Strickland, 1995). If we
cos2 (φk (t)) =

32

replace in Eq.(89) we get the nonlinear stochastic equations for the probabilities:
P robk [s, t] =
P robk [s0 , t − 4t]
=
1 + e−2βzk (t)
00
P robk [s , t − 4t]e−2βzk (t)
+
+
(95)
1 + e−2βzk (t)
−βz
(t)
p
e k
−
2 Bk (s0 , t − 4t)Ak (s00 , t − 4t)
1 + e−2βzk (t)
p
e−βzk (t)
−2 Ak (s0 , t − 4t)Bk (s00 , t − 4t)
1 + e−2βzk (t)

Figure 3: Simulation of financial returns for noisy gates with β = 2.0,
v0 = 0.9, λ = 1000, 80 components (79 volatility components plus 1 polarization component). The figure shows 4000 data points of a 4100 data
points simulation with the first 100 points removed for transients.
The figure 3 shows the occurrence of price jumps and clustering volatility,
the turbulence in this case is linked to the high number of components (rather
than to the noisy gates). Indeed, as the following two tables show, the
noisy gates do not have a strong effect on the transition from leptokurtic to
platikurtic distributions, both for low and high values of β, it is the number
of components that have a stronger impact on market profile, as seen in
table 7 for the case of v0 = 0.88 which for the simulation with β = 2 was
close enough to the Gaussian distribution for the non-rejection of the null
hypothesis of the Jarque-Bera test at a 10% significance level.

33

β = 0.01

Kurtosis

JB p-value

β=2

Kurtosis

JB p-value

v0 = 0.86
v0 = 0.87
v0 = 0.88
v0 = 0.89
v0 = 0.9

0.9171
0.0345
-0.3647
-0.7142
-0.6810

0.0
1.0518e-07
2.8422e-13
0.0
0.0

v0 = 0.86
v0 = 0.87
v0 = 0.88
v0 = 0.89
v0 = 0.9

0.7097
0.1786
-0.0856
-0.6205
-0.8840

0.0
0.0018
0.3119
0.0
0.0

Table 6: Kurtosis values and Jarque-Bera test of normality p-values for different simulations with variying v0 and noisy unitary gates. The other parameters are: β = 0.01 (left table) and β = 2 (right table), λ = 1000, 20
components (19 volatility components plus 1 polarization component), the
kurtosis coefficient was calculated on 5000 sample data points of a 5100 data
points simulation with the first 100 data points removed for transients.

β = 0.01
N
N
N
N
N

+ 1 = 10
+ 1 = 20
+ 1 = 30
+ 1 = 40
+ 1 = 50

Kurtosis

p-value

-1.3408
-0.3647
1.6227
2.5130
10.1352

0.0
2.8422e-13
0.0
0.0
0.0

N
N
N
N
N

β=2

Kurtosis

p-value

+ 1 = 10
+ 1 = 20
+ 1 = 30
+ 1 = 40
+ 1 = 50

-1.3752
-0.0856
2.2008
3.4597
15.9802

0.0
0.3119
0.0
0.0
0.0

Table 7: Kurtosis values and Jarque-Bera test of normality for different values
of the number of components (N + 1) and noisy unitary gates. The other
parameters are: v0 = 0.88 β = 0.01 (left table) and β = 2 (right table),
λ = 1000, the kurtosis coefficient was calculated on 5000 sample data points
of a 5100 data points simulation with the first 100 data points removed for
transients.
Indeed, the number of components shows a strong effect, as can be seen
in figure 3, which uses v0 = 0.9 and in table 7, that shows the transition from
platikurtic to leptokurtic for large values of the components, for both a low
and a high value of β.

34

3

Finance, Nonlinear Stochastic Dynamics and
Quantum Artificial Intelligence

From the early onset of development of Econophysics, some form of nonlinear stochastic dynamics has been considered to be present in financial
market dynamics. A major example being Vaga’s work that addressed explicitly different probability distributions corresponding to different (classical) Hamiltonian conditions (Vaga, 1990). The major point that markets
make transitions between different regimes and different probability distributions was key to Vaga’s market theory. On the other hand, the multifractal
multiplicative cascades (Mandelbrot et al., 1997) introduced multiplicative
stochastic processes as sources of market turbulence.
While a division line is drawn in regards to nonlinear deterministic processes versus nonlinear stochastic processes, the possible combination of both
might provide an intermediate approach, combining adaptive market dynamics and stochastic factors affecting market behavior.
As the previous section model shows, when recurrent QuANNs are applied
to financial modeling, the nonlinear deterministic dynamics and the nonlinear stochastic processes result directly from the quantum computational
structure, in the sense that: while the iterative computation of a QuANN
results from the linear conditional unitary state transition, the corresponding
probabilities, due to the square modulus rule for addressing the probabilities
associated to different neural firing patterns, leads to a nonlinear update rule
for the probabilities themselves, which means that the market behavior will
show an interference effect at the probability level expressable in terms of a
classical nonlinear map, thus, while the system follows a stochastic dynamics,
the probabilities are updated nonlinearly.
This is a direct consequence of Quantum Cognitive Science that comes
from human decision analysis, which shows that the nonlinear update in
probabilities, leading to non-additive decision weights may be computationally approached from linear unitary quantum computation on an appropriate
Hilbert space. Stochastic factors in the nonlinear update of probabilities can
also be introduced through unitary noise in the neural network’s computation
through stochastic Hamiltonians.
Although QuAI and QuANN theory are still on their early stages, they
provide a bridge between major lines of research on financial dynamics and
risk modeling including: nonlinear deterministic and stochastic dynamics ap35

plied to financial modeling, Cognitive Science and computational foundations
of Financial Theory. Future research on QuANNs dynamics may thus serve
as a relevant tool to link different approaches that characterized the different
lines of research on Econophysics-based Finance.
Anderson, Philip W., Kenneth J. Arrow and David Pines (Eds.), 1988,
The Economy as an Evolving Complex System, Perseus Books, USA.
Arthur, Brian W., Steven N. Durlauf and David Lane (Eds.), 1997, The
Economy as an Evolving Complex System II, Westview Press, USA.
Baaquie, Belal E., L.C. Kwek and M. Srikant, 2000, Simulation of Stochastic Volatility using Path Integration: Smiles and Frowns, arXiv:cond-mat/0008327v1.
Baaquie, Belal E. and Srikant Marakani, 2001, Empirical investigation of
a quantum field theory of forward rates, arXiv:cond-mat/0106317v2 [condmat.stat-mech].
Baaquie, Belal E., 2004, Quantum Finance: Path Integrals and Hamiltonians for Options and Interest Rates, Cambridge University Press, USA.
Baaquie, Belal E. and T. Pan, 2011, Simulation of coupon bond European
and barrier options in quantum finance, Physica A, 390, 263-289.
Behrman EC., Niemel J, Steck JE, Skinner SR., 1996, A Quantum Dot
Neural Network, In: T. Toffoli T and M. Biafore, Proceedings of the 4th
Workshop on Physics of Computation, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 22-24.
Bohm, David, 1984, Causaity and Chance in Modern Physics, (1997
Reprinted Version) Routledge & Kegan Paul, Eastbourne.
Bohm, David and Basil J. Hiley, 1993, The undivided universe - An ontological interpretation of quantum theory, Routledge, London.
Bransden, B.H. and Joachain, C.J., 2000, Quantum Mechanics, Prentice
Hall, England.
Bruce, Colin, 2004, Schrödinger’s Rabbits - the many worlds of quantum,
Joseph Henry Press, Washington DC.
Brunn, Charlotte (Ed.), 2006, Advances in Artificial Economics - The
Economy as a Complex Dynamic System, Springer, Berlin.
Busemeyer, Jerome R. and Riccardo Franco, 2010, What is The Evidence
for Quantum Like Interference Effects in Human Judgments and Decision
Behavior?, NeuroQuantology, vol.8, No.4, DOI: 10.14704/nq.2010.8.4.350.
Busemeyer, Jerome R. and Peter D. Bruza, 2012, Quantum models of
cognition and decision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Busemeyer, Jerome R. and Zheng Wang, 2014, Quantum Cognition: Key
Issues and Discussion, Topics in Cognitive Science 6: 43-46.
36

Calvet, Laurent and A. Fisher, 2002, Multifractality in asset returns:
Theory and evidence, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.84, 3, August,
381-406.
Calvet, Laurent and A. Fisher, 2004, Regime-switching and the estimation of multifractal processes. Journal of Financial Econometrics , 2: 44-83.
Choustova, Olga, 2007a, Quantum modeling of nonlinear dynamics of
stock prices: Bohmian approach, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics,
152(2): 1213-1222.
Choustova, Olga, 2007b, Toward quantum-like modeling of financial processes, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 70 01 2006.
Chrisley R., 1995, Quantum learning, In: Pylkkänen P and Pylkkö P
(eds.), New directions in cognitive science: Proceedings of the international
symposium, Saariselka, 4-9 August, Lapland, Finland, Finnish Artificial Intelligence Society, Helsinki, 77-89.
Deutsch, David, 1985, Quantum theory, the Church-Turing Principle and
the universal quantum computer, Proc R Soc Lond A, 400-497.
Deutsch, David, 1999, Quantum theory of probability and decisions, Proc.
R. Soc. Lond. A 1999 455 3129-3137.
DeWitt, Bryce S, 1970, Quantum mechanics and reality - Could the solution to the dilemma of indeterminism be a universe in which all possible
outcomes of an experiment actually occur?, Physics Today , Vol .23 , No .9,
155-165.
Dirac, P.A.M., 1967, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Fourth Edition), Claredon Press, Oxford.
Everett, Hugh, 1957, ’Relative state’ formulation of quantum mechanics.
Rev. of Mod. Physics, 29 (3):454-462.
Everett, Hugh, 1973, The Theory of the Universal Wavefunction, PhD
Manuscript, In: DeWitt, R. and N. Graham (Eds.), The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton Series in Physics, Princeton
University Press, 3-140.
Ehrentreich, Norman, 2008, Agent-Based Modeling - The Santa Fe Institute Artificial Stock Market Model Revisited, Springer, Berlin.
Farmer, Doyne, 2002, Market force, ecology and evolution, Industrial and
Corporate Change, 11 (5): 895-953.
Focardi, Sergio M. and Frank J. Fabozzi, 2004, The Mathematics of Financial Modeling and Investment Management, John Wiley and Sons, New
Jersey.

37

Gonçalves Carlos P, 2011, Financial turbulence, business cycles and intrinsic time in an artificial economy, Algorithmic Finance, 1(2): 141–156.
Gonçalves, Carlos P., 2013, Quantum Financial Economics - Risk and
Returns, J Syst Sci Complex, 26: 187-200.
Gonçalves, Carlos P., 2015, Quantum Cybernetics and Complex Quantum
Systems Science - A Quantum Connectionist Exploration, NeuroQuantology,
vol.13, No.1, DOI: 10.14704/nq.2015.13.1.804.
Greiner, Walter and Brendt Müller, 2001, Quantum Mechanics Symmetries, Springer, Germany.
Haven, Emmanuel and Andrei Khrennikov, 2013, Quantum Social Science, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Haken, H., 1977, Synergetics: An Introduction, Springer, Germany.
Iori, Giulia, 1999, Avalanche Dynamics and Trading Friction Effects on
Stock Market Returns, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C, 10, 1149.
Ilinski, Kirill, 2001, Physics of Finance - Gauge Modelling in Non-equilibrium
Pricing, John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex.
Ivancevic VG and Ivancevic TT., 2010, Quantum Neural Computation,
Springer, Dordrecht.
Kak S., 1995, Quantum Neural Computing. Advances in Imaging and
Electron Physics, vol. 94:259-313.
Kauffman, Stuart A., 1993, The Origins of Order - Self-Organization and
Selection in Evolution, Oxford University Press, New York.
Khrennikov, Andrei, 2010, Ubiquitous Quantum Structure: From Psychology to Finance, Springer, Berlin.
Khrennikov, Andrei and Irina Basieva, 2014, Quantum Model for Psychological Measurements: From the Projection Postulate to Interference of Mental Observables Represented As Positive Operator Valued Measures, NeuroQuantology, vol.12, No.3, DOI: 10.14704/nq.2014.12.3.750.
Leggett, A.J., 2002, Qubits, Cbits, Decoherence, Quantum Measurement
and Environment, In: Heiss, (Ed.), Fundamentals of Quantum Information - Quantum Computation, Communication, Decoherence and All That,
Springer, Germany.
Lux, Thomas, Michele Marchesi, 1999, Scaling and criticality in a stochastic multi-agent model of a financial market, Nature 397, 498-500.
Lux, Thomas, 2008, The Markov-Switching Multifractal Model of Asset
returns: GMM estimation and linear forecasting of volatility. Journal of
Business and Economic Statistics , 26:194-210.

38

Mandelbrot, Benoit B., A. Fisher and L. Calvet, 1997, A Multifractal
Model of Asset Returns, Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers: 1164.
Mandelbrot, Benoit, B., 1997, Fractals and Scaling in Finance, Springer,
USA.
McCulloch, W. and W. Pitts, 1943, A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 7:115 133.
Menneer T and Narayanan A., 1995, Quantum-inspired Neural Networks,
technical report R329, Department of Computer Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Menneer T., 1998, Quantum Artificial Neural Networks, Ph. D. thesis,
The University of Exeter, UK.
Müller B, J. Reinhardt and M.T. Strickland, 1995, Neural Networks An
Introduction, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Nash, J., 1951, Non-Cooperative Games, The Annals of Mathematics,
Second Series,Vol. 54, No. 2, 286-295.
Nielsen, Michael and Issac Chuang, 2003, Quantum Computation and
Quantum Information, The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge,
UK.
Piotrowski, Edward W. and J. Sladkowski, 2001, Quantum-like approach
to financial risk: quantum anthropic principle, Acta Phys.Polon., B32, 3873.
Piotrowski, Edward W. and J. Sladkowski, 2002, Quantum Market Games,
Physica A, Vol.312, 208-216.
Piotrowski, Edward W. and J. Sladkowski, 2008, Quantum auctions:
Facts and myths, Physica A, Vol. 387, 15, 3949-3953.
Saptsin, V. and V. Soloviev, 2009, Relativistic quantum econophysics new paradigms in complex systems modelling, arXiv:0907.1142v1 [physics.socph].
Saptsin, V. and V. Soloviev, 2011, Heisenberg uncertainty principle and
economic analogues of basic physical quantities, arXiv:1111.5289v1 [physics.genph].
Segal, W. and I.E. Segal, 1998, The Black–Scholes pricing formula in the
quantum context. PNAS March 31, vol. 95 no. 7, 4072-4075.
Vaga, Tonis, 1990, The Coherent Market Hypothesis, Financial Analysts
Journal, 46, 6: 36-49.
Voit, Johannes, 2001, The Statistical Mechanics of Financial Markets,
Springer, New York.

39

Wallace, David, 2002, Quantum Probability and Decision Theory, Revisited, arXiv:quant-ph/0211104.
Wallace, David, 2007, Quantum Probability from Subjective Likelihood:
improving on Deutsch’s proof of the probability rule, Studies in the History
and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38, 311-332.
Wang, Zheng and Jerome R. Busemeyer, 2013, A quantum question order
model supported by empirical tests of an a priori and precise prediction,
Topics in Cognitive Science, 5: 689–710.
Zuo, Xingdong, 2014, Numerical Simulation of Asano-Khrennikov-Ohya
Quantum-like Decision Making Model, vol.12, No.4, DOI: 10.14704/nq.2014.12.4.778.

40

