Arxiv:Quant-Ph/0109035V3 18 Jun 2002

Home , Monty Hall problem, Quantum game theory

arXiv:quant-ph/0109035v3 18 Jun 2002 taeyfrBbi oatrhscoc fdo n hs surpr this, and door of choice c his or alter selection to current diff is his a Bob with opens for sticking then of strategy Alice option door. the a has picks now (“Bob”) player The prize. unu atceadtreboxes three and particle quantum fteoiia atcei uhamne st “redistribute to a bo as manner a has a after Bob such taken game in is original particle measurement original suitable the autho a of Alice If The allowing strategy. and box. her one particular of original a the selects with entangled then particle Bob and particle the nifrainlvepiti lutae h aeweean where case system. the the illustrates about it viewpoint informational an iem 41,3,pnyflp[] h ateo h ee [11 sexes the of battle the [2], flip penny [4,12,13], switching dilemma or staying either by correct being of probability eso fteMnyHl rbe a eo neeti h stu the in interest infor of maximal be extracting may problem of Hall goal communicat Monty quantum the the of with of version game area strategic qua the a of in study as that the is and motivation [4,5 [6] Another entanglement includ information quantum quantum to with games and associated rec of T [2,3] theory a superposition classical games. been quantum the quantum has generalizing create there for Consequently, to way amplitudes, 1950s. probability the quantum since chance of 1 3 † ∗ mi drs:[email protected] address: Email mi drs:afl[email protected] address: Email to ntecasclMnyHl aetebne “lc” secret (“Alice”) banker the game Hall Monty classical the In eetatmta unu eso fteMnyHl proble Hall Monty the of version quantum a at attempt recent A nteltrtr hr r aiu xlrtoso quantum of explorations various are there literature the In nprdb h oko o emn 1,casclinformati classical [1], Neumann von of work the by Inspired h lsia ot alpolm[,0 a asdmc inte much raised has [9,10] problem Hall Monty classical The 3 2 . etefrBoeia niern CM)adDprmn of Department and (CBME) Engineering Biomedical for Centre aheulbimi unu ie taeista ie the gives in that equilibrium do strategies Nash other mixed no game. the quantum is in while there equilibrium strategy strategies Nash quantum quantum a to to of access qutrits access the have of to entanglement with involves obtained player state be entangleme initial can than no the more involves if nothing state players the initial offers the game If strategies. tum eso fteMnyHl rbe speetdweetepla the where presented is problem Hall Monty the of version A 2 3 hneo ikn h orc o yatrn i hiebtw but choice his altering by box correct the picking of chance unu eso fteMnyHl problem Hall Monty the of version Quantum | 0 i , | 1 dlieUiest,S 05 Australia 5005, SA University, Adelaide i I UNU OT HALL MONTY QUANTUM II. and , ..Flitney A.P. .INTRODUCTION I. | 2 i Fbur ,2008) 1, (February lc eet uepsto fbxsfrhriiilplac initial her for boxes of superposition a selects Alice . ∗ 1 . omk unu esrmn nti atcea part a as particle this on measurement quantum a make to .Abbott D. , h atceeel ewe h te w oe.I the In boxes. two other the between evenly particle the ” 1] n tes[51] nti ae etk different a take we paper this In [15–19]. others and ,14], paetnl prto oside rvd information provide indeed does operation null apparent unu ae.Qatmsrtge a xli both exploit can strategies Quantum games. quantum e agn oteutuhddo.Cascly h optimum the Classically, door. untouched the to hanging snl,dulshscac 9 fwnigtepiefrom prize the winning of [9] chance his doubles isingly, soee tcnhv h euto hnigtestate the changing of result the have can it opened is x ain[] thsas ensgetdta quantum a that suggested been also has It [7]. mation .Teeaemn aaoe n novdproblems unsolved and paradoxes many are There ]. tmgm hoyi sflto oepoeti area. this explore to tool useful a is theory game ntum rn orsoigta h rz sntbhn t Bob it. behind not is prize the that showing door erent yo unu taeiso unu esrmn [8]. measurement quantum of strategies quantum of dy smk hsafi aeb nrdcn nadditional an introducing by game fair a this make rs etbcuei ssapycutrnutv.As from Also counterintuitive. sharply is it because rest yslcsoedo ftrebhn hc opaea place to which behind three of door one selects ly esmnlpprb ee n19 2 one the pointed [2] 1999 in with Meyer theory by game paper classical seminal recasting he in interest ent ntersshv enuiiigtesuyo games of study the utilizing been have theorists on o,otmlqatmevsrpigcnb treated be can eavesdropping quantum optimal ion, ae 24581–9.Freape h prisoner’s the example, For [2,4,5,8,11–19]. games h w lyr,i savnaeu o one for advantageous is it players, two the tteNs qiiru ntequantum the in equilibrium Nash the nt 8 sbifl ecie sflos hr sone is there follows: as described briefly is [8] m † aeaeaepyffa h classical the as payoff average same Engineering, Electronic and Electrical uesrtge,hwvr hr sa is there however, strategies, pure lsia ie taey However, strategy. mixed classical a snt hr ohpaeshave players both Where not. es esaepritdt eetquan- select to permitted are yers t hscag o has Bob change this ith mn of ement 1 2 approach to Ref. [8] and quantize the original Monty Hall game directly, with no ancillary particles, and allow the banker and/or player to access general quantum strategies. Alice’s and Bob’s choices are represented by qutrits [20] and we suppose that they start in some initial state. Their strategies are operators acting on their respective qutrit. A third qutrit is used to represent the box “opened” by Alice. That is, the the state of the system can be expressed as

ψ = oba , (1) | i | i where a = Alice’s choice of box, b = Bob’s choice of box, and o = the box that has been opened. The initial state of the system shall be designated as ψi . The ﬁnal state of the system is | i

ψf = (Scosˆ γ + Nˆ sin γ) Oˆ (Iˆ Bˆ Aˆ) ψi , (2) | i ⊗ ⊗ | i where Aˆ = Alice’s choice operator or strategy, Bˆ = Bob’s initial choice operator or initial strategy, Oˆ = the opening box operator, Sˆ = Bob’s switching operator, Nˆ = Bob’s not-switching operator, Iˆ = the identity operator, and π γ [0, 2 ]. It is necessary for the initial state to contain a designation for an open box but this should not be taken literally∈ (it does not make sense in the context of the game). We shall assign the initial state of the open box to be 0 . | iThe open box operator is a unitary operator that can be written as

O=ˆ ǫijk njk ℓjk + mjj ℓjj , (3) | | | ih | | ih | Xijkℓ Xjℓ where ǫijk = 1, if i, j, k are all different and 0 otherwise, m = (j + ℓ + 1)(mod3), and n = (i + ℓ)(mod3). The| second| term applies to states where Alice would have a choice of box to open and is one way of providing a unique algorithm for this choice [21]. Here and later the summations are all over the range 0, 1, 2. We should not consider Oˆ to be the literal action of opening a box and inspecting its contents, that would constitute a measurement, but rather it is an operator that marks a box (ie., sets the o qutrit) in such a way that it is anti-correlated with Alice’s and Bob’s choices. The coherence of the system is maintained until the final stage of determining the payoff. Bob’s switch box operator can be written as

S=ˆ ǫijℓ iℓk ijk + iij iij , (4) | | | ih | | ih | Xijkℓ Xij where the second term is not relevant to the mechanics of the game but is added to ensure unitarity of the operator. Both Oˆ and Sˆ map each possible basis state to a unique basis state. Nˆ is the identity operator on the three-qutrit state. The Aˆ = (aij ) and Bˆ = (bij ) operators can be selected by the players to operate on their choice of box (that has some initial value to be speciﬁed later) and are restricted to members of SU(3). Bob also selects the parameter γ that controls the mixture of staying or switching. In the context of a quantum game it is only the expectation value of the payoﬀ that is relevant. Bob wins if he picks the correct box, hence

2 $B = ijj ψf . (5) h i |h | i| Xij

Alice wins if Bob is incorrect, so $A =1 $B . h i − h i

III. SOME RESULTS

In quantum game theory it is conventional to have an initial state 000 that is transformed by an entnaglement | i operator Jˆ [4]. Instead we shall simply look at initial states with and without entanglement. Suppose the initial state of Alice’s and Bob’s choices is an equal mixture of all possible states with no entanglement: 1 1 ψi = 0 ( 0 + 1 + 2 ) ( 0 + 1 + 2 ) . (6) | i | i⊗ √3 | i | i | i ⊗ √3 | i | i | i We can then compute

2 1 O(ˆ Iˆ Bˆ Aˆ) ψ = ǫijk (b0j + b1j + b2j )(a0k + a1k + a2k) ijk (7) ⊗ ⊗ | i 3 | | | i Xijk 1 + (b0j + b1j + b2j )(a0j + a1j + a2j ) mjj ; 3 | i Xj 1 SˆO(ˆ Iˆ Bˆ Aˆ) ψi = ǫijk (b0j + b1j + b2j )(a0k + a1k + a2k) ikk ⊗ ⊗ | i 3 | | | i Xijk 1 + ǫjkm (b0j + b1j + b2j)(a0j + a1j + a2j ) mkj , 3 | | | i Xjk where m = (j + 1)(mod3). This gives

1 2 2 2 $B = cos γ (1 δjk) b0j + b1j + b2j a0k + a1k + a2k (8) h i 9 − | | | | Xjk

1 2 2 2 + sin γ b0j + b1j + b2j a0j + a1j + a2j . 9 | | | | Xj

We are now in a position to consider some simple cases. If Alice chooses to apply the identity operator, which is equivalent to her choosing a mixed classical strategy where each of the boxes is chosen with equal probability, Bob’s payoﬀ is

2 2 1 2 2 $B = cos γ + sin γ b0j + b1j + b2j . (9) h i 9 9 | | Xj

Unitarity of B implies that

2 bik =1 for i =0, 1, 2, (10) | | Xk

and b∗ bjk =0 for i, j =0, 1, 2 with i = j , ik 6 Xk which means that the sum in Eq. (9) is identically 3. Thus,

2 2 1 2 $B = cos γ + sin γ , (11) h i 3 3 2 2 which is the same as a classical mixed strategy where Bob chooses to switch with a probability of cos γ (payoff 3 ) 2 1 and not to switch with probability sin γ (payoff 3 ). The situation is not changed where Alice uses a quantum strategy and Bob is restricted to applying the identity operator (leaving his choice as an equal superposition of the three possible boxes). Then Bob’s payoff becomes

2 2 1 2 2 $B = cos γ + sin γ a0j + a1j + a2j , (12) h i 9 9 | | Xj which, using the unitarity of A, gives the same result as Eq. (11). 2 ˆ ˆ If both players have access to quantum strategies, Alice can restrict Bob to at most $B = 3 by choosing A = I, 2 ˆ ˆ h i while Bob can ensure an average payoﬀ of at least 3 by choosing B = I and γ = 0 (switch). Thus this is the Nash equilibrium of the quantum game and it gives the same results as the classical game. The Nash equilibrium is not unique. Bob can also choose either of

0 1 0 0 0 1 Mˆ 1 =  0 0 1  or Mˆ 2 =  1 0 0  , (13) 1 0 0 0 1 0     which amount to a shuﬄing of Bob’s choice, and then switch boxes.

3 It should not be surprising that the quantum strategies produced nothing new in the previous case since there was no entanglement in the initial state [22]. A more interesting situation to consider is an initial state with maximal entanglement between Alice’s and Bob’s choices: 1 ψi = 0 ( 00 + 11 + 22 ) . (14) | i | i⊗ √3 | i | i | i Now 1 1 O(ˆ Iˆ Bˆ Aˆ) ψi = ǫijk bℓjaℓk ijk + bℓjaℓj mjj ; (15) ⊗ ⊗ | i √ | | | i √ | i 3 Xijkℓ 3 Xjℓ 1 1 SˆO(ˆ Iˆ Bˆ Aˆ) ψi = ǫijk bℓjaℓk ikk + ǫjkm bℓjaℓj mkj , ⊗ ⊗ | i √ | | | i √ | | | i 3 Xijkℓ 3 Xjkℓ where again m = (j + 1)(mod3). This results in

1 2 2 $B = sin γ b0j a0j + b1j a1j + b2ja2j (16) h i 3 | | Xj 1 2 2 + cos γ (1 δjk) b0j a0k + b1j a1k + b2j a2k . 3 − | | Xjk

First consider the case where Bob is limited to a classical mixed strategy. For example, setting Bˆ = Iˆ is equivalent to the classical strategy of selecting any of the three boxes with equal probability. Bob’s payoﬀ is then

1 2 2 2 2 $B = sin γ ( a00 + a11 + a22 ) (17) h i 3 | | | | | | 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 + cos γ ( a01 + a02 + a10 + a12 + a20 + a21 ) . 3 | | | | | | | | | | | | 1 Alice can then make the game fair by selecting an operator whose diagonal elements all have an absolute value of √2 1 and whose oﬀ-diagonal elements all have absolute value 2 . One such SU(3) operator is

1 1 1 √2 2 2 1 3 i√7 1+i√7 Hˆ =  −  . (18) − 2 4√2 4√2 1 i√7 3+i√7 5+i√7  − − −   4√2 8 8  1 This yields a payoﬀ to both players of 2 , whether Bob chooses to switch or not. The situation where Alice is limited to the identity operator (or any other classical strategy) is uninteresting. Bob can achieve a payoﬀ of 1 by setting Bˆ = Iˆ and then not switching. The correlation between Alice’s and Bob’s choice of boxes remains, so Bob is assured of winning. Bob also wins if he applies Mˆ 1 or Mˆ 2 and then switches. As noted by Benjamin and Hayden [12], for a maximally entangled initial state in a symmetric quantum game, every quantum strategy has a counterstrategy since for any U SU(3), ∈ 1 1 (Uˆ Iˆ) ( 00 + 11 + 22 ) = (Iˆ Uˆ T ) ( 00 + 11 + 22 ) . (19) ⊗ √3 | i | i | i ⊗ √3 | i | i | i

Since the initial choices of the players are symmetric, for any strategy Aˆ chosen by Alice, Bob has the counter Aˆ∗: 1 1 (Aˆ∗ Aˆ) ( 00 + 11 + 22 ) = (Iˆ Aˆ†Aˆ) ( 00 + 11 + 22 ) (20) ⊗ √3 | i | i | i ⊗ √3 | i | i | i 1 = ( 00 + 11 + 22 ) . √3 | i | i | i The correlation between Alice’s and Bob’s choices remains, so Bob can achieve a unit payoﬀ by not switching boxes. Similarly for any strategy Bˆ chosen by Bob, Alice can ensure a win by countering with Aˆ = Bˆ∗ if Bob has chosen γ = 0, while a γ = 1 strategy is defeated by Bˆ∗Mˆ , where Mˆ is Mˆ 1 or Mˆ 2 given in Eq. (13). As a result there is no

4 Nash equilibrium amongst pure quantum strategies. Note that Alice can also play a fair game, irrespective of the value ˆ ˆ 1 of γ, by choosing B∗H, giving an expected payoff of 2 to both players. A Nash equilibrium amongst mixed quantum strategies can be found. Where both players choose to play Iˆ, Mˆ1 or Mˆ2 with equal probabilities neither player can gain an advantage over the classical payoffs. If Bob chooses to switch all the time, when he has selected the same operator as Alice, he loses, but the other two times out of three he wins. Not switching produces the complementary 1 payoff of $B = , so the situation is analogous to the classical game. h i 3

IV. CONCLUSION

For the Monty Hall game where both participants have access to quantum strategies, maximal entanglement of the initial states produces the same payoffs as the classical game. That is, for the Nash equilibrium strategy the player, Bob, wins two-thirds of the time by switching boxes. If the banker, Alice, has access to a quantum strategy while Bob 1 does not, the game is fair, since Alice can adopt a strategy with an expected payoff of 2 for each person, while if Bob has access to a quantum strategy and Alice does not he can win all the time. Without entanglement the quantum game confirms our expectations by offering nothing more than a classical mixed strategy.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by GTECH Corporation Australia with the assistance of the SA Lotteries Commis- sion (Australia). Useful discussions with David Meyer, USCD, and Wanli Li, Princeton University, are gratefully acknowledged.

[1] J. von Neumann, Applied Mathematics Series 12, 36 (1951). [2] D.A. Meyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1052 (1999); in Quantum Computation: A Grand Mathematical Challenge for the Twenty- ﬁrst Century and the Millenium edited by S.J. Lomonaco, Jr. (American Mathematical Society, Rhode Island, 2002, in press) [3] L. Goldenberg, L. Vaidman, and S. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3356 (1999). [4] J. Eisert, M. Wilkens, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3077 (1999); 87, 069802 (2001); J. Eisert and M. Wilkens, J. Mod. Opt. 47, 2543 (2000). [5] S.C. Benjamin and P.M. Hayden, Phys. Rev. A 64, 030301(R) (2001). [6] M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge, England, 2000). [7] H.E. Brandt, Prog. Quantum Elec. 22, 257 (1998). [8] Chuan-Feng Li, Yong-Sheng Zhang, Yun-Feng Huang, and Guang-Can Guo, Phys. Lett. A 280, 257 (2001). [9] M. vos Savant, Am. Stat. 45, 347 (1991). [10] L. Gillman, Am. Math. Monthly 99, 3 (1992). [11] L. Marinatto and T. Weber, Phys. Lett. A 272, 291 (2000); 277, 183 (2000). [12] S.C. Benjamin and P.M. Hayden, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 069801 (2001). [13] Hui Li, Xiaodong Xu, Mingjun Shi, Jihiu Wu, and Rongdian Han, quant-ph/0104087. [14] Jiangfeng Du, Xiaodong Xu, Hui Li, Xianyi Zhou, and Rongdian Han, quant-ph/0010050. [15] Jiangfeng Du, Hui Li, Xiaodong Xu, Mingjun Shi, Xianyi Zhou, and Rongdian Han, quant-ph/0010092. [16] J. Ng and D. Abbott, in Annals of the International Society on Dynamic Games, edited by A. Nowac (Birkhauser, Boston, submitted). [17] A. Iqbal and A.H. Tour, Phys. Lett. A 280, 249 (2001); 286, 245 (2001). [18] N.F. Johnson, Phys. Rev. A 63, 020302(R) (2001). [19] A.P. Flitney, J. Ng, and D. Abbott, quant-ph/0201037. [20] Qutrit is the three state generalization of the term qubit which refers to a two-state system. [21] Note that this operator gives results for the opened box that are inconsistent with the rules of the game if ℓ = 1 or ℓ = 2. It is necessary to write the operator this way to ensure unitarity, however, we are only interested in states where the initial value of the opened box is |0i, i.e., ℓ = 0. [22] Eisert [4] ﬁnds that with an unentangled initial state, in quantum prisoners’ dilemma, the players’ quantum strategies are equivalent to classical mixed strategies.