the problem of violations of the axioms of probability go back to the early 60 s .
@xcite published a work that influenced modern psychology by showing that humans violate the laws of probability theory when making decisions under risk .
the principle that humans were constantly violating is defined by _ the sure thing principle_. it is a concept widely used in game theory and was originally introduced by  @xcite .
this principle is fundamental in bayesian probability theory and states that if one prefers action @xmath0 over @xmath1 under state of the world @xmath2 , and if one also prefers @xmath0 over @xmath1 under the complementary state of the world @xmath2 , then one should always prefer action @xmath0 over @xmath1 even when the state of the world is unspecified .
cognitive psychologists a. tversky and d. khamenman also explored more situations where classical probability theory could not be accommodated in human decisions . in their pioneering work ,  @xcite realised that the beliefs expressed by humans could not follow the rules of boolean logic or classical probability theory , because humans can not process large amounts of data in order to make estimations or judgements .
consequently , the inferences performed are based on limited data coupled with several heuristics , leading to a violation on one of the most important laws in bayesian theory : the law of total probability .    one of the key differences between classical and quantum theories is the way how information is processed .
according to classical decision making , a person changes beliefs at each moment in time , but it can only be in one precise state with respect to some judgement .
so , at each moment , a person is favouring a specific belief .
the process of human inference deterministically either jumps between definite states or stays in a single definite state across time  @xcite .
most computer science , cognitive and decision systems are modelled according to this single path trajectory principle .
figure  [ fig : definite_states ] illustrates this idea .    in quantum information processing , on the other hand , information
( and consequently beliefs ) are modelled via wave functions and therefore they can not be in definite states .
instead , they are in an indefinite quantum state called the @xmath3 state .
that is , all beliefs are occurring on the human mind at the same time .
according to cognitive scientists , this effect is responsible for making people experience uncertainties , ambiguities or even confusion before making a decision . at each moment
, one belief can be more favoured than another , but all beliefs are available at the same time . in this sense ,
quantum theory enables the modelling of the cognitive system as it was a wave moving across time over a state space until a final decision is made . from this superposed state
, uncertainty can produce different waves coming from opposite directions that can crash into each other , causing an interference distribution .
this phenomena can never be obtained in a classical setting .
figure  [ fig : interference ] exemplifies this .
when the final decision is made , then there is no more uncertainty .
the wave collapses into a definite state .
thus , quantum information processing deals with both definite and indefinite states  @xcite .
@xcite were one of the first researchers to test the veracity of savage s principle under human cognition in a gambling game . in their experiment
, participants were asked at each stage to make the decision of whether or not to play a gamble that has an equal chance of winning $ 200 or losing $ 100 .
figure  3 illustrates the experiment .
three conditions were verified :    1 .
participants were informed if they had won the first gamble ; 2 .
participants were informed if they had lost the first gamble ; 3 .
participants did not know the outcome of the first gamble ;     [ fig : two_stage_gambling ]    the two - stage gambling game was one of the first experiments used in order to determine if the sure thing principle would be verified even with people that did not know about the existence of this principle .
the results obtained in  @xcite experiment showed that this principle is constantly being violated and consequently humans do not perform inferences according to the laws of probability theory and boolean logic .    the overall results revealed that participants who knew that they won the first gamble , decided to play again .
participants who knew that they lost the first gamble , also decided to play again . through savage s sure thing principle
, it was expected that the participants would choose to play again , even if they did not know the outcome of the first gamble .
however , the results obtained revealed something different .
if the participants did not know the outcome of the first gamble , then many of them decided not to play the second one .
several researchers replicated this experiment .
the overall results are specified in table  [ tab : game_results ] .
why did the findings reported in table  [ tab : game_results ] generate so much controversy in the scientific community ? because , the data observed is not in accordance with the classical law of total probability . in tversky and shafir s experiment  @xcite , the probability of a participant playing the second gamble , given that the outcome of the first gamble is unknown , @xmath4 , can be computed through the law of total probability :    @xmath5    in equation  [ eq : law_total_prob ] , @xmath6 corresponds to the probability of a player winning the first gamble , given that ( s)he participated on the game in the first place .
@xmath7 is the probability of playing the second gamble , given that it is known that the player won the first one .
@xmath8 corresponds to the probability of losing the first gamble , given that the participant decided to play the game in the first place . and finally , @xmath9 is the probability of a participant playing the second gamble , given that it is known that ( s)he lost the first one .
following the law of total probability in equation  [ eq : law_total_prob ] , the probability of playing the second gamble , given that the player did not know the outcome of the first one , should be between the following values  @xcite :    @xmath10    the findings reported by  @xcite , however , revealed a different relation .
equation  [ eq : relation_observed ] demonstrates that this relation is violating one of the most fundamental laws of bayesian probability theory :    @xmath11    @xcite explained these findings in the following way : when the participants knew that they won , then they had extra house money to play with and decided to play the second round .
if the participants knew that they lost , then they chose to play again with the hope of recovering the lost money .
but , when the participants did not know if they had won or lost the first gamble , then these thoughts , for some reason , did not emerge in their minds and consequently they decided not to play the second gamble .
other works in the literature also replicated this two - stage gambling experiment  @xcite , also reporting similar results to  @xcite .
their results are summarised in table  [ tab : game_results ] .
there have been different works in the literature trying to explain and model this phenomena  @xcite .
although the models in the literature diverge , they all agree in one thing : one can not use classical probability theory to model this phenomena , since the most important rules are being violated .
this two stage gambling game experiment was one of the most important works that motivated the use of different theories outside of classical bayesian theory and boolean logic , more specifically the usage of quantum probability theory .
recent findings in the cognitive psychology literature revealed that humans are constantly violating the law of total probability when making decisions under risk  @xcite .
these researchers also showed that quantum probability theory enables the development of decision models that are able to simulate human decisions . given that most of the systems that are used nowadays are based on bayesian probability theory ,
is it possible to achieve better inference mechanisms in these systems using quantum probability theory ?
for instance , many medical diagnosing systems are based in classical probabilistic graphical models such as bayesian networks .
can one achieve better performances in diagnosing patients using quantum probability ?    generally speaking , a bayesian network is a probabilistic graphical model that represents a set of random variables and their conditional dependencies via a directed acyclic graph .
there are two main works in the literature that have contributed to the development and understanding of quantum bayesian networks .
one belongs to  @xcite and the other to  @xcite .    in the work of  @xcite
, it is argued that any classical bayesian network can be extended to a quantum one by replacing real probabilities with quantum complex amplitudes .
this means that the factorisation should be performed in the same way as in a classical bayesian network .
one big problem with tucci s work is concerned with the inexistence of any methods to set the phase parameters .
the author states that , one could have infinite quantum bayesian networks representing the same classical bayesian network depending on the values that one chooses to set the parameters .
this requires that one knows _ a priori _ which parameters would lead to the desired solution for each node queried in the network ( which we never know ) .    in the work of  @xcite , the authors argue that , in order to develop a quantum bayesian network , it is required a quantum version of probability distributions , quantum marginal probabilities and quantum conditional probabilities .
the proposed model fails to provide any advantage relatively to the classical models , because it can not take into account interference effects between unobserved random variables . in the end , both models provide no advantages in modelling decision making problems that try to predict decisions that violate the laws of total probability .     [
fig : qbn_example1 ]    in this paper , the core of the proposed bayesian network is based on the psychological findings uncovered in the works of  @xcite and on quantum information processing .
these authors show that , before taking a decision , human thoughts are seen as superposed waves that can interfere with each other , influencing the final decision . in bayesian networks , nodes can either be query variables , evidences or simply unknown .
given that we do not observe the unknown nodes of a bayesian network , since we do not know for sure what values they can take , then what would happen to the inference process if these nodes are put in a representation of a quantum superposition and interfere with each other ( figure  4 ) ? can a better inference process be achieved ?
these are the main research questions that this paper aims at answering .
so far , to the best of our knowledge , there is no previous work in the computer science community that attempts to map these psychological findings into computer science decision making systems , such as bayesian networks .    in order to validate our hypothesis , we performed experiments with well known classical bayesian networks from the literature .
we first create a quantum bayesian network that can accommodate the paradoxical findings in the two - stage gambling game .
we then generalise our quantum bayesian network in order to deal with larger and more complex datasets that are used in the literature : the well known burglar / alarm bayesian network from  @xcite and the lung cancer bayesian network from  @xcite .      before describing the proposed model , we first need to introduce some quantum probability concepts for the understanding of this work . sections  [ sec : probability ] and  [ sec : traj ]
present the main differences between classical and quantum probability theory . instead of just presenting a set of formulas
, we show this difference by means of an illustrative example , just like proposed in  @xcite . in section
[ sec : interference ] , we describe how beliefs can act like waves and interfere with each other .
we show mathematically how this interference term can be derived by using well known rules of complex numbers .
section  [ sec : theta_lit ] addresses the main works of the literature that contributed for the development of the interference term .
it also introduces a new interference formula that will be applied in the proposed quantum probabilistic graphical models .
section  [ sec : classic_vs_quantum_gamble ] presents a comparison between a classical bayesian network model against the proposed quantum interference bayesian network applied to the problem of two - stage gambles . section  [ sec : classic_vs_quantum_burglar ] presents another comparison between the classical and quantum bayesian networks , but for a more complex network from the literature . in section  [ sec :
discussion ] , it is made a discussion about the results obtained in the experiments performed in section  [ sec : classic_vs_quantum_burglar ] .
section  [ sec : opt ] presents an additional experiment over another bayesian network in order to study the impact of the quantum interference parameters in different scenarios .
section  [ sec : rel_work ] presents the most relevant works of the literature .
finally , section  [ sec : conclusions ] presents the main conclusions of this work .
in this section , we describe the main differences between classical theory and quantum probability theory through examples .
the example analyzed concerns jury duty .
suppose you are a juror and you must decide whether a defendant is guilty or innocent .
the following sections describe how the classical and quantum theory evolve in the inference process .
all this analysis is based on the book of  @xcite .      in classical probability theory ,
events are contained in sample spaces .
a sample space @xmath12 corresponds to the set of all possible outcomes of an experiment or random trial  @xcite .
for example , when judging whether a defendant is guilty or innocent , the sample space is given by @xmath13 .
figure  [ fig : sample_space ] presents a diagram showing the sample space of a defendant being guilty or innocent .
+ in quantum probability theory , events are contained in the so called hilbert spaces .
a hilbert space @xmath14 can be viewed as a generalisation and extension of the euclidean space into spaces with any finite or infinite number or dimensions .
it can be see as a vector space of complex numbers and offers the structure of an inner product to enable the measurement of angles and lengths  @xcite .
the space is spanned by a set of orthonormal basis vectors @xmath15 .
together , these vectors form a basis for the space .
figure  [ fig : hilbert_space ] presents a diagram showing the hilbert space of a defendant being guilty or innocent  @xcite .
since a hilbert space enables the usage of complex numbers , then , in order to represent the events @xmath16 and @xmath17 , one would need two dimensions for each event ( one for the real part and another for the imaginary part ) . in quantum theory
, one usually ignores the imaginary component in order to be able to visualise geometrically all vectors in a 2-dimensional space .      in classical probability theory ,
events can be defined by a set of outcomes to which a probability is assigned .
they correspond to a subset of the sample space @xmath12 from which they are contained in .
events can be mutually exclusive and they obey to set theory .
this means that operations such as intersection or union of events are well defined . since they respect set theory , the distributive axiom is also defined between sets . in our example ,
@xmath16 or @xmath17 can be seen as two mutually exclusive events .      .
]    in figure  [ fig : quantum_events ] , the superposition state @xmath18 can be defined as follows .
@xmath20    in equation  [ eq : ampl ] , one might be wondering what the @xmath21 values mean .
they are called @xmath22 @xmath23 .
they correspond to the amplitudes of a wave and are described by complex numbers .
the @xmath24 term is defined as the phase of the amplitude .
it can be seen as a shift of the wave .
these amplitudes are related to classical probability by taking the squared magnitude of these amplitudes .
this is achieved by multiplying the amplitude with its complex conjugate ( represented by the symbol @xmath25 ) .
@xmath26    in quantum theory , it is required that the sum of the squared magnitudes of each amplitude equals @xmath27 .
this axiom is called the normalization axiom and corresponds to the classical theory constraint that the probability of all events in a sample space should sum to one .
[ sec : system_state ]    a system state is nothing more than a probability function @xmath29 which maps events into probability numbers , i.e. , positive real numbers between @xmath30 and @xmath27 .    in classical theory
, the system state corresponds to exactly its definition .
there is a function that is responsible to assign a probability value to the outcome of an event .
if the event corresponds to the sample space , then the system state assigns a probability value of @xmath27 to the event .
if the event is empty , then it assigns a probability of @xmath30 . in our example , if nothing else is told to the juror , then the probability of the defendant being guilty is @xmath31 .
in quantum theory , the probability of a defendant being @xmath16 is given by the squared magnitude of the projection from the superposition state @xmath18 to the subspace containing the observed event @xmath16 .
figure  [ fig : hilbert_system_state ] shows an example . if nothing is told to the juror about the guiltiness of a defendant , then according to quantum theory , we start with a superposition state @xmath18 .
@xmath32    when someone asks whether the defendant is guilty , then we project the superposition state @xmath18 into the relevant subspace , in this case the @xmath16 subspace @xmath33 , just like shown in figure  [ fig : hilbert_system_state ] .
the probability is simply the squared magnitude of the projection , that is :    @xmath34    which has exactly the same outcome as in the classical theory .    .
then , this superposition state is projected into the @xmath35 subspace @xmath36 .
the final probability corresponds to the squared magnitude of the projection . ]
state revision corresponds to the situation where after observing an event , we are interested in observing other events given that the previous one has occurred .    in classical theory , this is addressed through the conditional probability formula @xmath37 .
so , returning to our example , suppose that some evidence has been given to the juror proving that the defendant is actually guilty , then what is the probability of him being innocent ?
this is computed in the following way .
@xmath38    since the events @xmath16 and @xmath17 are mutually exclusive , then their intersection is empty , leading to a zero probability value .    in quantum theory ,
the state revision is given by first projecting the superposition state @xmath18 into the subspace representing the observed event .
then , the projection is normalised such that the resulting vector is unit length .
again , if we want to determine the probability of a defendant being innocent , given he was found guilty , the calculations are performed as follows .
we first start in the superposition state vector @xmath18 .
@xmath39    then , we observe that the defendant is guilty , so we project the state vector @xmath18 into the @xmath16 subspace and normalise the resulting projection .
@xmath40    @xmath41    from the resulting state , we just extract the probability of being innocent by simply squaring the respective probability amplitude .
again , we obtain the same results as the classical theory .    @xmath42     subspace . ]
in order to describe direct dependencies between a set of variables , path diagrams are generally used .
this section shows how to compute quantum probabilities in a markov model using feynman s path rules , just like presented in the work of  @xcite .
consider the diagram represented in figure  [ fig : single_trajectory ] .
the computation of the probability of transiting from an initial state @xmath0 to a final state @xmath43 , transiting from an intermediate state @xmath1 , can be achieved through a classical markov model .
the probability can be computed by making the product of the individual probabilities for each transition , from one state to another , through the usage of conditional probabilities .
according to figure  [ fig : single_trajectory ] , the probability of transiting from state @xmath0 , followed by state @xmath1 and ending in state @xmath43 , that is , @xmath44 , is given by :    @xmath45    in a quantum path diagram model , the computation of the probabilities for a single path trajectory is similar to the classical markov model .
the calculation can be performed using feynman s first rule , which asserts that the probability of a single path trajectory consists in the product of the squared magnitudes of the amplitudes for each transition from one state to the next along the path .
this means that the quantum probability value of a single path trajectory is the same as the classical markov probability for the same path . in equation  [ eq : feynman1 ] and through the rest of this work
, complex probability amplitudes will be represented by the symbol @xmath46 .
@xmath47      an indistinguishable path consists in transiting from an initial state @xmath0 to a final state @xmath48 by transiting from multiple possible paths without knowing for certain which path was taken to reach the goal state .
figure  [ fig : multiple_trajectory_unobs ] shows an example of multiple indistinguishable trajectories . in a classical markov model , if one does not observe which path was taken to reach the final state @xmath48 , then one simply computes this probability by summing the individual probabilities of each path .
this is known as the single path principle and is in accordance with the law of total probability .
so , following figure  [ fig : multiple_trajectory_unobs ] , in order to reach state @xmath48 starting in state @xmath0 , one can take the path @xmath49 or the path @xmath50 .
the final probability is given by :    @xmath51    quantum probability theory rejects the single path trajectory principle .
if one does not observe which path was taken to reach the goal state , then one can not assume that one of each possible paths was used . instead , quantum probability argues that , when the path is unobserved , then the goal state can be reached through a superposition of path trajectories .
this is known as feynman s second rule , which states that the amplitude of transiting from an initial state @xmath0 to a final state @xmath48 , taking multiple indistinguishable paths , is given by the sum of all amplitudes for each path .
this rule is in accordance with the law of total amplitude and the probability is computed by taking the squared magnitude of this sum .
this probability is not equal to the classical markov model .
@xmath52 @xmath53    the term @xmath54 is the inner product between the vectors formed by @xmath55 and @xmath56 .
it comes from euler s rule : @xmath57 and corresponds to a quantum interference term that does not exist in classical probability theory . section  [ sec : interference ] details how this term is derived .
since the interference term can lead to estimations with values higher than 1 , then it is necessary to normalize this value in order to obtain a probability value .
when the path is observed , quantum probability theory collapses to the classical markov model .
this is know as feynman s third rule and states that the probability amplitude of observed multiple path trajectories corresponds to the sum of the amplitudes of each individual path .
the probabilities are then taken by making the squared magnitude of each individual path .
figure  [ fig : multiple_trajectory_obs ] illustrates this example :    @xmath58 @xmath59
quantum theory enables the modeling of the decision system as a wave moving across time over a state space until a final decision is made . under this perspective
, interference can be regarded as a chain of waves in a superposition state , coming from different directions .
when these waves crash , one can experience a destructive effect ( one wave destroys the other ) or a constructive effect ( one wave merges with another ) . in either case , the final probabilities of each wave is affected .
psychological findings showed that this not only occurs in a microscopic scale ( such as electrons ) , but also occurs at a macroscopic setting  @xcite .    in this section
we show how to derive the interference term by just taking into account well known properties of complex numbers  @xcite .
the interference term can be derived in two different ways : ( 1 ) from the general probability formula of the union of @xmath60 mutually exclusive events and ( 2 ) through the total law of probability .      for simplicity
, we will start by deriving the interference term for 2 events and then we will generalize for @xmath60 events .
the classical probability formula of the union of two mutual exclusive events is given by :    @xmath61    and the relation between a classical probability density function and a quantum probability amplitude is given by born s rule , that is :    @xmath62    again , @xmath63 corresponds to the square magnitude of a complex amplitude .
it is obtained by multiplying the probability amplitude with its complex conjugate .
that is , @xmath64 .    taking into account equation  [ eq : relation ] ,
one can write a superposition state between two mutual exclusive events @xmath0 and @xmath1 in the following way :    @xmath65    the relation of this superposed state with classical probability theory remains :    @xmath66    the quantum counterpart of the classical probability of the union of two mutually exclusive events , when we do not observe them , collapses to feynmann s second rule , that is :    @xmath67    @xmath68    @xmath69    the classical probability of the union of two mutual exclusive events is @xmath70 . in equation  [ eq : int_1 ] , the amplitude @xmath71 corresponds to @xmath72 and @xmath73 corresponds to @xmath74 .
so , what is the additional term , @xmath75 , that we derived in equation  [ eq : int_1 ] ?
this term does not exist in classical probability theory and is called _ the interference term_. the interference term can be rewritten like in equation  [ eq : int_2 ] :    @xmath76    knowing that , @xmath77 then equation  [ eq : int_2 ] can be rewritten as :    @xmath78    so , the complete quantum probability formula for the union of 2 mutually exclusive events is given by :    @xmath79    in the above formula , the angle @xmath80 corresponds to the phase of the inner product between @xmath81 and @xmath82 .
equation  [ eq : int_4 ] only computes the probability of the union of 2 mutually exclusive events . in classical probability theory ,
if we want to compute the probability of the union of @xmath60 mutually exclusive events , then we use a generalization of equation  [ eq : union ] , that is :    @xmath83    in quantum theory , we make an analogous calculation . in order to compute the probability of the union of @xmath60 mutually exclusive events
, then one needs to generalize equation  [ eq : qn_union ] .
the outcome is given by the following formula :    @xmath84    @xmath85      this interference term can also be derived directly from the law of total probability .
suppose that events @xmath86 form a set of mutually disjoint events , such that their union is all in the sample space , @xmath12 , for any other event @xmath1 .
then , the classical law of total probability can be formulated like in equation  [ eq : law_total_prob_c ] .
@xmath87    the quantum interference law of total probability can be derived through equation  [ eq : law_total_prob_c ] by applying born s rule ( equation  [ eq : relation ] ) . that is :    @xmath88    for simplicity
, we will expand equation  [ eq : total_law_q_1 ] for @xmath89 and only later we will find the general formula for @xmath60 events :    @xmath90    @xmath91    @xmath92    @xmath93    @xmath94    @xmath95    simplifying equation  [ eq : total_law_q_4 ] , we obtain :    @xmath96    in equation  [ eq : total_law_q_5 ] , one can see that it is composed by the classical law of total probability and by an interference term .
this interference term comes from equation  [ eq : total_law_q_4 ] and corresponds to :    @xmath97    @xmath98    @xmath99    knowing that @xmath100 then , equation  [ eq : total_law_q_5 ] becomes    @xmath101    generalizing equation  [ eq : total_law_q_7 ] for @xmath60 events , the final probabilistic interference formula , derived from the law of total probability , is given by :    @xmath102    following equation  [ eq : total_law_q_final ] , when @xmath103 equals zero , then it is straightforward that quantum probability theory converges to its classical counterpart , because the interference term will be zero .    for non - zero values , equation  [ eq : total_law_q_final ] will produce interference effects that can affect destructively the classical probability ( when interference term in smaller than zero ) or constructively ( when it is bigger than zero )
additionally , equation  [ eq : total_law_q_final ] will lead to a large amount of @xmath104 parameters when the number of events increases .
for @xmath60 binary random variables , we will end up with @xmath105 parameters to tune .
in the 20th century , the physicist max born proposed a problem related to quantum probabilities , which was later known as the _ the inverse born problem_. the problem consisted in constructing a probabilistic representation of data from different sources ( physics , psychology , economy , etc ) , by a complex probability amplitude , which could match born s rule ( already presented in equation  [ eq : relation ] ) .    the probabilistic interference formula for the law of total probability , derived in the previous section ( equation  [ eq : total_law_q_final ] ) ,
can be seen as an answer to the inverse born problem .
the most important works in the literature that contributed for the derivation of this interference term , through the law of total probability , correspond to the works of a. khrennikov  @xcite .
these authors address the interference term as @xmath106 . in the situations
where @xmath107 , then one can apply the trigonometric formula derived in equation  [ eq : total_law_q_final ] . however , there are some data where this condition is not verified . therefore , when @xmath108 , the authors propose the usage of a hyperbolic interference term , to act like an upper boundary in order to constraint the probability value to a maximum value of @xmath27 .
this would require the usage of hyperbolic hilbert spaces instead of the complex ones .    in this paper , we argue that there is no need to represent probabilities in a hyperbolic hilbert space in order to avoid non - probability values .
since we will be dealing with probabilistic graphical models , we will always be required to normalise the probability amplitudes when performing probabilistic inferences . for this work ,
we follow the same probabilistic paradigm used in traditional bayesian networks . thus , we constrain equation  [ eq : total_law_q_final_norm ] and equation  [ eq : union_qn_norm ] by a normalisation factor @xmath109 that will guarantee that the computed values will always be probabilities lesser or equal than one .
this normalisation factor corresponds to feynman s conjecture  @xcite that an electron can follow any path .
thus , in order to compute the probability @xmath74 that a particle ends up at a point @xmath1 , one must sum over all possible paths that the particle can go through .
since the interference term can lead to estimations with values higher than @xmath27 , then it is necessary to normalise in order to obtain a probability value .
@xmath111 \label{eq : union_qn_norm}\ ] ]    @xmath112    through the triangular inequality , we can also prove that the proposed interference term is also always positive .
this way , the axioms of probability theory that state that @xmath113 will always be satisfied . by applying the triangular inequality , one can easily demonstrate that equation  [ eq : union_qn_norm ] and , consequently , equation  [ eq : total_law_q_final_norm ] have always to be positive .    through the triangular inequality , equation  [ eq : union_qn_norm ]
can be related to :    @xmath114    @xmath115    @xmath116    @xmath117    @xmath118 \ge 0\ ] ]    the maximum value that @xmath119 can have is @xmath27 and the minimum value is @xmath120 .
so , the minimum value that the term @xmath121 can have is @xmath30 ( when the cosine achieves its maximum value ) . given that @xmath122 are always positive numbers , then it is straightforward that equation  [ eq : total_law_q_final_norm ] has to be always positive .
a classical bayesian network can be defined by a directed acyclic graph structure in which each node represents a different random variable from a specific domain and each edge represents a direct influence from the source node to the target node .
the graph represents independence relationships between variables and each node is associated with a conditional probability table which specifies a distribution over the values of a node given each possible joint assignment of values of its parents .
this idea of a node depending directly from its parent nodes is the core of bayesian networks .
once the values of the parents are known , no information relating directly or indirectly to its parents or other ancestors can influence the beliefs about it  @xcite .
associated to bayesian networks there is always the concept of conditional independence .
two random variables @xmath2 and @xmath123 are conditionally independent given a third random variable @xmath124 if and only if they are independent in their conditional probability distribution given @xmath124 .
in other words , @xmath2 and @xmath123 are conditionally independent given @xmath124 , @xmath125 , if and only if , given any value of @xmath124 , the probability distribution of @xmath2 is the same for all values of @xmath123 and the probability distribution of @xmath123 is the same for all values of @xmath2 .
this means that an independence statement over random variables is a universal quantification over all possible values of random variables  @xcite .
therefore , a probability distribution @xmath29 satisfies @xmath126 if and only if : @xmath127      in classical probability theory , a random variable @xmath2 is defined by a function that associates a value to each outcome in the sample space @xmath12 , @xmath128 .      in the two - stage gambling game ,
the random variables correspond to the nodes and their respective conditional probability tables of the bayesian network in figure  [ fig : classical ] .
that is , the variable @xmath129 corresponds to a player willing or not to participate in the game .
variable @xmath130 corresponds to the variable winning or losing the first gamble .
variable @xmath131 corresponds to a player playing or not the second gamble .      in classical probability theory , the full joint distribution over a set of @xmath132 random variables @xmath133
@xmath134 @xmath135 @xmath136 @xmath137 @xmath138 @xmath139 defined over the same sample space , @xmath140 , is the distribution that assigns probabilities to events that are specified in terms of these random variable  @xcite.then , the full joint distribution of a bayesian network , where @xmath2 is the list of variables , is given by  @xcite :    @xmath141      using equation  [ eq : joint ] , the full joint distribution of figure  [ fig : classical ] corresponds to the calculations discriminated in tables  [ tab : full_joint ] .
.fulll joint distribution of the bayesian newtwork in figure  [ fig : classical ] [ cols="<,<,<,^",options="header " , ]     figures  [ fig : dyspnea]-[fig : cancer ] also show all the possible probability values that the variables from the lung cancer bayesian network can achieve , when nothing is known .    when we are at a maximum level of uncertainty , classical probabilities tend to assume that events are equiprobable , that is , the probability of their outcome is always the same no matter their context .
quantum theory , on the other hand , provides a more relaxed framework .
when nothing is known , then there are more degrees of freedom that enable the outcome of any event to be any possible value .
this way , by analysing the context of certain events ( for example , a medical decision scenario , a gambling game , etc ) , the quantum parameters @xmath104 can be modelled in such a way that they can simulate reality more accurately and more precisely than its classical counterpart .    in this sense , in order to develop more accurate quantum bayesian networks , a study of the context of the problem is required in order to start the search for the optimum @xmath104 parameters .
techniques to search for these optimum quantum parameters is still an open research question and an unexplored field in the literature of quantum cognition and quantum decision models .
since the preliminary findings of  @xcite , cognitive scientists began to use alternative theories , such as quantum probability theory , in an attempt to explain the paradoxical findings that classical probability theory could not explain . given the flexibility of the quantum probabilistic framework , several researchers applied these concepts in several fields outside of physics . in this section ,
we present some of the topics in which quantum probability has made some impacts in the literature .      in what concerns violations of probability theory ,
there are many paradoxical situations where classical probability is unable to model .
the most important paradoxes consist in violations in the sure thing principle .
examples of such violations correspond to the ellsberg paradox  @xcite , the two - stage gambling game  @xcite and the prisoner s dilemma game  @xcite .    in what concerns the prisoner s dilemma game , many works in the literature
have been proposed , which formalise the problem in a quantum approach .
for instance ,  @xcite proposed a quantum dynamic markov model for the prisoner s dilemma game . in their model
, the authors represented the players beliefs and actions as a superposition in a quantum state vector .
when the player knew the information about the opponent s action , the superposition state collapsed to a new state that was compatible with the action chosen by the opponent .
when the player did not know about the opponent s move , then the system involved through the application of unitary transformations . in  @xcite , the authors focus on irrational choices and developed a model based on the quantum superposition and interference principles for the prisoner dilemma game .
after each play , the state is updated until it reaches an equilibrium . in  @xcite , the authors analysed quantum conditional probabilities in the prisoner s dilemma game .
there are also works that consider that the probabilities in the prisoner s dilemma game correspond to different contexts and these contexts can be incompatible .
the authors argue that the probabilities observed in the prisoner s dilemma game were not classical , but were not quantum either in the sense of traditional quantum mechanics theory .
so the author introduced the quantum - like approach and suggested a new trigonometric interference term  @xcite .
@xcite proposed quantum model which incorporated entangled decisions and explained the violations of the sure thing principle through interference effects between intentions . in  @xcite , the authors explored the impact of these violations in economics and analyse the two - stage gambling game and the prisoner s dilemma game under a quantum probabilistic point of view , by proposing a quantum markov model to explain the paradoxical observations in these games .
finally ,  @xcite proposed a quantum bayesian updating scheme based on the formalisms of quantum mechanics that represents mental states on a hilbert state . through the usage of projections
, they were able to introduce a model that could explain the paradoxical findings of the two - stage gambling game  @xcite .
another similar work that compares bayes rule to its quantum counterpart corresponds to  @xcite .
other situations , in which the laws of probability are being violated , correspond to disjunction or conjunction fallacies .
a conjunction error occurs when it is assumed that specific conditions are more probable than a single general one . a disjunction error , on the other hand , consists in assuming that the disjunction of two events is at least as likely as either of the events individually .
several works in the literature used quantum probabilistic models to address these fallacies . for instance ,  @xcite developed a quantum probabilistic model to explain fallacies when making preferences over a set of events , more specifically , the conjunction fallacy .
@xcite also focused on quantum models to explain conjunction and  @xcite focused on disjunction fallacies .
the first experiments where these fallacies were observed to occur were performed by  @xcite . an alternative model for conjunction and disjunction errors
correspond to  @xcite .
the authors used support theory as a subjective probabilistic model that describes the way people make probability judgments .
the main problem of their model is that support theory is able to successfully describe conjunction errors , but fails at explaining disjunction errors .
other models correspond to  @xcite .
@xcite also addressed the problem of conjunction and disjunction fallacies .
they proposed quantum model which incorporated entangled decisions .
@xcite also modelled mental processes through quantum probabilities , where the interference process plays an important role in the process of recognising images@xcite .
other interesting works of this author applying similar quantum formalisms correspond to  @xcite .      in what concerns quantum probabilistic graphical models , there are various contributions . for example , in  @xcite the model proposed by the author is exactly the same as a classical bayesian network .
the only difference is that it uses complex numbers in the conditional probability tables instead of real values .
a similar model has been proposed by  @xcite , but for markov networks . in  @xcite ,
the author proposed a quantum bayesian network by replacing the classical formulas used to perform the inference process by their quantum counterpart .
@xcite ,  @xcite and  @xcite proposed a quantum dynamic markov model based on the findings of cognitive psychologists and interference terms .
one of the first and most influential models that applied quantum probability for decision making belongs to  @xcite . in their work , the authors proposed the @xmath142-model , which can be defined as a quantum machine that corresponds to a two dimensional hilbert space . given an event in this quantum machine one can compute quantum like probabilities .
the model also makes use of a parameter @xmath142 that measures the total amount of uncertainty when computing the probabilities .
other works related to this model can be found in  @xcite .
@xcite proposed a quantum bayesian updating scheme based on the formalisms of quantum mechanics that represents mental states on a hilbert state . through the usage of projections
, they were able to introduce a model that could explain the paradoxical findings of the two - stage gambling game  @xcite .
another similar work that compares bayes rule to its quantum counterpart corresponds to  @xcite .
there is also an increasing interest in applying quantum like models to subjects outside of psychology . in game theory
there have been works exploring the uncertainties of a player towards another through quantum probabilistic models .
for instance , @xcite focus on irrational choices and developed a model based on the quantum superposition and interference principles for the prisoner dilemma game .
after each play , the state is updated until it reaches an equilibrium .
@xcite used the data collected by  @xcite and analysed quantum conditional probabilities .
@xcite generalised the classical expected utility and proposed a quantum projective expected utility function that does not violate the laws of classical probability theory and can accommodate allais and ellsberg paradoxes .
@xcite made a formalisation of the structure of quantum probability theory and  @xcite also applied these formalists to expected utilities .
@xcite applied quantum theory to the fields of economics and game theory and developed a principle to minimise financial risks  @xcite modelled how a person updates its beliefs in the liar s paradox .
@xcite also modelled mental processes through quantum probabilities , where the interference process plays an important role in the process of recognising images@xcite .
other interesting works of this author applying similar quantum formalisms correspond to  @xcite .
@xcite developed a quantum mechanics based framework in order to model agents preferences under uncertainty .
more recently ,  @xcite published a work that generated discussions over the scientific literature , about whether or not , quantum probability can provide a new direction to compute quantum probabilistic inferences . in their work , they summarised the main areas where quantum probability has made some impact ( conjunction / disjunction errors , sure thing principle , etc ) . a deep analysis of the differences between classical and quantum probability is also made in this work .
@xcite also shares a similar opinion that quantum probability can , in fact , provide a new framework to explain several situations in which the laws of probability are violated .
however , they defend that the usage of quantum probability should be more close to its real meaning in quantum mechanics and proposes to explain the phenomena , such as contextually , entanglement , observables and flock spaces .    the work of
,  @xcite has stimulated some discussions on the implications of quantum probability in functional brain networks .
for instance ,  @xcite have discussed the similarities between the vector representations of quantum states with a vector symbolic architecture , which is used to model realistic biological neural models . in this sense , biological neural models
can also incorporate the quantum probabilistic framework and also introduce quantum interference effects , as a mathematical and geometric alternative framework , without taking into account the true meaning that is given these effects under quantum physics .
other authors also support this idea of representing neuronal model using the quantum probabilistic framework  @xcite .
this work was motivated by the preliminary experiments of  @xcite about violations of the classical probability theory on the sure thing principle .
this principle states that if one chooses action @xmath0 over @xmath1 in a state of the world @xmath2 , and if one also chooses action @xmath0 over @xmath1 under the complementary state of the world @xmath2 , then one should always choose action @xmath0 over @xmath1 , even when the state of the world in unspecified . when humans need to make decisions under risk , several heuristics are used , since humans can not process large amounts of data .
these decisions coupled with heuristics lead to violations on the law of total probability .
recent work in cognitive psychology revealed that quantum probability theory provides another method of computing probabilities without falling into the restrictions that classical probability have in modelling cognitive systems of decision making .
quantum probability theory can also be seen as a generalisation of classical probability theory , since it also includes the classical probabilities as a special case ( when the interference term is zero ) .
the main difference between quantum and classical probability lies in the fact that on quantum probability we are constantly updating some beliefs when making a decision , while in classical probability all beliefs are assumed to have a definite value before a decision is made , and this value is the outcome of the decision  @xcite .
the main research question for this work was how could these quantum probabilities affect probabilistic graphical models , such as bayesian networks , since many of nowadays decision making systems are based on such structures ( medical diagnosis , spam filtering , image segmentation , etc ) .    in this work
, we proposed a novel bayesian network for the computer science community based on quantum probabilities .
our method can accommodate puzzling observations that the classical probability failed to explain ( for instance , the two - step gambling game ) .
when the nodes of the proposed bayesian network are represented as a superposition state , then one can look at this state as many waves moving across in different directions .
these waves can crash into each other causing waves to be bigger or to cancel each other .
this is the interference phenomena that the proposed bayesian network offers and that has direct implications when making inferences .
therefore , the proposed network represents and simulates quantum aspects motivated by feynman s path integrals .
experimental results revealed that the proposed quantum bayesian network enables many degrees of freedom in choosing the final outcome of the probabilities . if we had a real scenario , with real observations
, one could use the present model to fit it to the observed data , by simply tuning the parameter @xmath104 .
this parameter can open a door into machine learning approaches .
learning algorithms using the proposed method might produce better prediction models , since the quantum probability amplitudes are able to fully represent real word data . for future work , we intend to explore machine learning algorithms under quantum probabilistic graphical model formalisms .
the overall results also suggested that when the classical probability of some variable is already high , then the quantum probability tends to increase it even more .
when the classical probability is very low , then the proposed model tends to lower it .    when there are many unobserved nodes in the network then the levels of uncertainty are very high .
but , in the opposite scenario , when there are very few unobserved nodes , then the proposed quantum model tends to collapse into its classical counterpart , since the uncertainty levels are very low .
the proposed bayesian network can integrate human thoughts by representing a person s beliefs in an n - dimensional unit length quantum state vector . in the same way ,
the proposed quantum structure is general enough to represent any other context in which there is a need to formalise uncertainty , including prediction problems in data fusion . in the context of bayesian networks
, data fusion is introduced in the work of  @xcite .
the author argues that , just like people , bayesian networks are structures that integrate data from multiple sources of evidence and enable the generation of a coherent interpretation of that data through a reasoning process .
the fusion of all these multiple data sources can be done using bayes theorem .
when a data source is unknown , then the bayes rule is extended in order to sum out all possible values of the probability distribution representing the unknown data source .
the proposed quantum bayesian network takes advantage of these uncertainties by representing them in a superposition state , which enables the fusion of the data sources through quantum interference effects .
these effects produce changes in the final likelihoods of the outcomes and provide a promising way to perform predictions more accurately according to reality .
so , the quantum bayesian network that is proposed in this work is potentially relevant and applicable in any behavioural situation in which uncertainty is involved .    72    luigi accardi , andrei khrennikov , and masanori ohya .
quantum markov model for data from shafir - tversky experiments in cognitive psychology .
, 14:371385 , 2009 .
diederik aerts .
quantum structures : an attempt to explain the origin of their appearence in nature . , 34:122 , 1995
.    diederik aerts .
quantum structure in cognition .
, 53:314348 , 2009 .
diederik aerts , jan broekaert , and liane gabora .
a case for applying an abstracted quantum formalism to cognition .
, 29:136146 , 2011 .
diederik aerts , jan broekaert , liane gabora , and sandro sozzo . quantum structure and human thought .
, 36:274276 , 2013 .
diederik aerts , jan broekaert , and sonja smets . a quantum structure description of the liar paradox .
, 38:32313239 , 2004 .
diederik aerts and thomas durt .
quantum , classical and intermediate , an illustrative example .
, 24:13531369 , 1994 .
diederik aerts , thomas durt , and bruno  van bogaert .
a physical example of quantum fuzzy sets and the classical limit . , 1:515 , 1993 .
diederik aerts , thomas durt , and bruno  van bogaert .
quantum probability , the classical limit and nonlocality . in _ proceedings of the international symposium on the foundations of modern physics _ , 1993 .
diederik aerts and liane gabora . a theory of concepts and their combinations i : the structure of the sets of contexts and properties . , 34:167191 , 2005 .
diederik aerts and liane gabora . a theory of concepts and their combinations ii : a hilbert space representation .
, 34:192221 , 2005 .
sven aerts .
conditinal probabilities with a quantal and kolmogorovian limit . , 35:2245 , 1996
.    sven aerts .
interactive probability models : inverse problems on the sphere . , 37:305309 , 1998 .
masanari asano , irina basieva , andrei khrennikov , masanori ohya , and yoshiharu tanaka .
quantum - like generalization of the bayesian updating scheme for objective and subjective mental uncertainties .
, 56:166175 , 2012 .
masanari asano , masanori ohya , and andrei khrennikov . quantum - like model for decision making process in two players game , a non - kolmogorovian model .
, 41:538548 , 2010 .
arpan banerjee and barry horwitz .
can quantum probability help analyze the behaviour of functional brain networks ?
, 36:278279 , 2013 .
jerome busemeyer and peter bruza . .
cambridge university press , 2012 .
jerome busemeyer , marvin matthew , and zheng wang .
a quantum information processing explanation of disjunction effects . in _ proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the cognitive science society _ , 2006 .
jerome busemeyer , emmanuel pothos , riccardo franco , and jennifer trueblood . a quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors . ,
118:193218 , 2011 .
jerome busemeyer and jennifer trueblood .
comparison of quantum and bayesian inference models . in _ proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on quantum interaction _
, 2009 .
jerome busemeyer , zheng wang , and ariane lambert - mogiliansky . empirical comparison of markov and quantum models of decision making .
, 53:423433 , 2009 .
jerome busemeyer , zheng wang , and james townsend .
quantum dynamics of human decision making .
, 50:220241 , 2006 .
taksu cheon and taiki tahahashi .
interference and inequality in quantum decision theory .
, 375:100104 , 2010 .
elio conte , andrei khrennikov , orlando todarello , antonio federici , leonardo mendolicchio , and joseph zbilut .
mental states follow quantum mechanics during perception and cognition of ambiguous figures . , 16:117 , 2009 .
elio conte , orlando todarello , antonio federici , francesco vitiello , michele lopane , andrei khrennikov , and joseph zbilut .
some remarks on an experiment suggesting quantum like behavior of cognitive entities and formulation of an abstract quantum mechanical formalism to describe cognitive entity and its dynamics .
, 31:10761088 , 2007 .
ratchel croson .
the disjunction effect and reason - based choice in games . , 80:118133 , 1999 .
vladimir danilov and ariane lambert - mogiliansky .
measurable systems and behavioral sciences . , 55:315340 , 2008 .
vladimir danilov and ariane lambert - mogiliansky .
expected utility theory under non - classical uncertainty . , 68:2547 , 2010 .
jos  acacio de  barros .
quantum - like model of behavioral response computation using neural oscillators .
, 110:171182 , 2012 .
jose  acacio de  barros and patrick suppes .
quantum mechanics , interference , and the brain .
, 53:306313 , 2009 .    morris degroot and mark schervish .
pearson education ( 4th edition ) , 2011 .
daniel ellsberg .
risk , ambiguity and the savage axioms .
, 75:643669 , 1961 .
richard feynman , robert leighton , and mathew sands . .
addison - wesley , 1965 .
riccardo franco .
the conjunction fallacy and interference effects .
, 53:415422 , 2009 .
liane gabora and diederik aerts .
contextualizing concepts using a mathematical generalization of the quantum formalism .
, 14:327358 , 2002 .
gerd gigerenzer and daniel  g. goldstein .
reasoning the fast and frugal way : models of bounded rationality .
, 103:650669 , 1996 .
gerd gigerenzer and ulrich hoffrage .
how to improve bayesian reasoning without instruction : frequency formats .
, 102:684704 , 1995 .
stuart hameroff .
how quantum brain biology can rescue conscious free will .
6:117 , 2012 .    emmanuel haven and andrei khrennikov .
. cambridge university press , 2013 .
mika hirvensalo . .
springer , 2003 .
evgenia hristova and maurice grinberg .
disjunction effect in prisonner s dilemma : evidences from an eye - tracking study . in _ proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the cognitive science society _ , 2008 .
andrei khrennikov .
classical and quantum mechanics on information spaces with applications to cognitive psychological , social and anomalous phenomena . , 29:10651098 , 1999 .
andrei khrennikov .
interference of probabilities in the classical probabilistic framework .
, 155:417 , 2005 .
andrei khrennikov .
quantum - like brain : interference of minds .
, 84:225241 , 2006 .
andrei khrennikov .
can quantum information be processed by macroscopic systems ?
, 6:401429 , 2007 .
andrei khrennikov .
description of composite quantum systems by means of classical random fields .
, 40:10511064 , 2009 .
andrei khrennikov .
quantum - like model of cognitive decision making and information processing .
, 95:179187 , 2009 .
andrei khrennikov and emmanuel haven .
quantum mechanics and violations of the sure - thing principle : the use of probability interference and other concepts . , 53:378388 , 2009 .
daphne koller and nir friedman . . the mit press , 2009 .
anton kuhberger , dagmara komunska , and perner josef .
the disjunction effect : does it exist for two - step gambles ?
, 85:250264 , 2001 .
charles lambdin and charles burdsal .
the disjunction effect reexamined : relevant methodological issues and the fallacy of unspecified percentage comparisons . , 103:268276 , 2007 .
ariane lambert - mogiliansky , shmuel zamir , and herve zwirn .
type indeterminacy : a model for the kt(kahneman - tversky)-man . , 53:349361 , 2009 .
mathew leifer and david poulin .
quantum graphical models and belief propagation .
, 323:18991946 , 2008 .
eprint arxiv - ph/0708.1337 [ quant - ph ] .
shu li and john taplin .
examining whether there is a disjunction effect in prisoner s dilemma game .
, 44:2546 , 2002 .
donald metzler and w.  bruce croft .
linear feature - based models for information retrieval .
, 16(28):123 , 2007 .
pierfrancesco  la mura .
projective expected utility .
, 53:408414 , 2009 .
pierfrancesco  la mura and lukasz swiatczak .
markov entangled networks . technical report , aaai spring symposium , 2007 .
judea pearl .
fusion , propagation , and structuring in belief networks . , 29:241288 , 1986 .
judea pearl . .
morgan kaufmann publishers , 1988 .
edward piotrowski .
quantum - like approach to financial risk : quantum anthropic principle .
, 32:38733879 , 2001 .
emmanuel pothos and jerome busemeyer . a quantum probability explanation for violations of rational decision theory .
, 276:21712178 , 2009 .
emmanuel pothos and jerome busemeyer .
can quantum probability provide a new direction for cognitive modeling ?
, 36:255327 , 2013 .
sturat russel and peter norvig . .
pearson education ( 3rd edition ) , 2010 .
leonard savage . .
john wiley , 1954 .
eldar shafir and amos tversky .
thinking through uncertainty : nonconsequential reasoning and choice .
, 24:449474 , 1992 .    terrence stewart and chris eliasmith .
realistic neurons can compute the operations needed by quantum probability theory and other vector symbolic architectures .
, 36:307308 , 2013 .
katya tentori , vincenzo crupi , and selena russo . on the determinants of the conjunction fallacy
: confirmation versus probability . , 142:23555 , 2013 .    robert tucci .
quantum bayesian nets .
, 9:295337 , 1995 .
amos tversky and daniel kahnenman .
judgment under uncertainty : heuristics and biases .
, 185:11241131 , 1974 .
amos tversky and derek koehler .
support theory : a nonextensional representation of subjective probability .
, 10:547567 , 1994 .
amos tversky and eldar shafir .
the disjunction effect in choice under uncertainty .
, 3:305309 , 1992 .
vyacheslav yukalov and didier sornette .
decision theory with prospect interference and entanglement .
, 70:283328 , 2011 .
the most naive approach of parameter search is the grid search method . in this approach , it is placed a grid over the parameter space and the data is evaluated at every grid intersection , returning the parameters , which lead to the maximum performance of an algorithm @xcite .
however , grid search has the problem of being unbounded , since an infinite set of parameters are available to be tested . in the scope of this work , this is not a problem , because we always have a boundary .
the values of a cosine function can all be specified for angles between the range @xmath143 $ ] .
the grid search approach is a very naive method for finding parameters in the parameter space .
in fact , there are several advanced parameter search algorithms in the literature , which do not have a heavy computational cost .
the motivation behind the usage of the grid search approach in this work is that the computational time required by any of the other advanced methods is almost the same as using grid search .
in addition , many of the advanced search parameter methods in the literature perform approximations , which can be avoided by the direct parameter search of the grid search approach @xcite .
classical probability when it is true ( pr(a = t ) ) , @xmath144 , +  interference term correspondent to @xmath144 , @xmath145 , +  classical probability when it is true ( pr(a = f ) ) , @xmath146 , +  interference term correspondent to @xmath146,@xmath147 , +   + maximum quantum probabilities , +  list of @xmath104 parameters that maximise the quantum probability +   + @xmath148  // initialise variable that will store the maximum probability found