Quantum PBR Theorem as a Monty Hall Game

Del Rajan ID and Matt Visser ID School of Mathematics and Statistics, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington 6140, New Zealand. (Dated: LATEX-ed September 20, 2019) The quantum Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph (PBR) theorem addresses the question of whether the quantum state corresponds to a ψ-ontic model (system’s physical state) or to a ψ-epistemic model (observer’s knowledge about the system). We reformulate the PBR theorem as a Monty Hall game, and show that winning probabilities, for switching doors in the game, depend whether it is a ψ-ontic or ψ-epistemic game. For certain cases of the latter, switching doors provides no advantage. We also apply the concepts involved to quantum teleportation, in particular for improving reliability.

Introduction: No-go theorems in quantum foundations Furthermore, concepts involved in the PBR proof have are vitally important for our understanding of quantum been used for a particular guessing game [43]. physics. Bell’s theorem [1] exemplifies this by showing In this Letter, we reformulate the PBR theorem into that locally realistic models must contradict the experi- a Monty Hall game. This particular gamification of the mental predictions of quantum theory. theorem highlights that winning probabilities, for switch- There are various ways of viewing Bell’s theorem ing doors in the game, depend on whether it is a ψ-ontic through the framework of game theory [2]. These are or ψ-epistemic game; we also show that in certain ψ- commonly referred to as nonlocal games, and the best epistemic games switching doors provides no advantage. known example is the CHSH game; in this scenario the This may have consequences for an alternative experi- participants can win the game at a higher probability mental test of the PBR theorem. Furthermore, we shall with quantum resources, as opposed to having access to also use the concepts involved for modifying quantum only classical resources. There has also been work on the teleportation [44, 45] to view it as a Monty Hall game. relationship between Bell’s theorem and Bayesian game Using these notions, we develop an error-correcting strat- theory [3–5]; in a subset of cases it was shown that quan- egy for unreliable teleportation which may be relevant for tum resources provide an advantage, and lead to quan- practical quantum networks. tum Nash equilibria. In [6], it was shown that quantum PBR theorem: We provide a rough sketch of the PBR nonlocality can outperform classical strategies in games proof [24], and highlight crucial outcomes. Two quantum where participants have conflicting interests. In [7], a systems are prepared independently, and each system√ is nonlocal game was constructed where quantum resources prepared in either state |0i or state |+i = (|0i + |1i)/ 2. did not offer an advantage. This means that the total system is in one of the four possible non-orthogonal quantum states: Beyond Bell’s theorem, entropic uncertainty relations can be viewed in the framework of a guessing game [8, |Ψ1i = |0i ⊗ |0i , |Ψ2i = |0i ⊗ |+i , 9]; the uncertainty relation constraints the participant’s |Ψ3i = |+i ⊗ |0i , |Ψ4i = |+i ⊗ |+i . (1) ability to win the game. More broadly, the relationship between quantum theory and game theory is investigated The total system is brought together and measured in in [10–12]. The Monty Hall game [13–16] has also been the following entangled basis: generalized into quantum versions [17–23]. |Φ i = √1 (|0i ⊗ |1i + |1i ⊗ |0i), 1 2 The Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph (PBR) theorem [24] is a |Φ i = √1 (|0i ⊗ |−i + |1i ⊗ |+i), relatively recent no-go theorem in quantum foundations. 2 2 It addresses the question of whether the quantum state |Φ i = √1 (|+i ⊗ |1i + |−i ⊗ |0i), 3 2 arXiv:1909.06771v2 [quant-ph] 19 Sep 2019 corresponds to a ψ-ontic model (physical state of a sys- |Φ i = √1 (|+i ⊗ |−i + |−i ⊗ |+i), (2) tem) or to a ψ-epistemic model (observer’s knowledge 4 2 √ about the system) [25]. Notable developments on the where |−i = (|0i − |1i)/ 2. PBR theorem and ψ-epistemic models have been carried 2 Invoking the Born probabilities, |hΦi|Ψhi| , where out in [26–34], including on the issue of quantum indis- 2 i, h = 1, 2, 3, 4, we have for i = h, |hΦi|Ψii| = 0. This tinguishability [35–37], as well being interpreted through means that for any value i, the outcome |Φii never oc- the language of communication protocols [38, 39]. curs when the system is prepared in quantum state |Ψii. Analogous to the game formulation of Bell’s theorem, The PBR proof showed that in ψ-epistemic models there a desirable construction is to view the PBR theorem is a non-zero probability q (whose value does not need to through the lens of a game. One instantiation of this is in be specified) that outcome |Φii occurs when state |Ψii is an exclusion game where the participant’s goal is to pro- prepared, thereby contradicting the predictions of quan- duce a particular bit string [40, 41]; this has been shown tum theory; hence one can infer that the quantum state to be related to the task of quantum bet hedging [42]. corresponds to a ψ-ontic model. 2

Classic Monty Hall: A character named Monty hosts be computed to be 1/3. From the last two values, we can a game show. There are three closed doors respectively calculate the conditional probability labelled {1, 2, 3}. There is a prize behind one door, and 1/3 1 goats behind the remaining two. The prize door is de- P (win if switch | opens goat door) = = . (6) 2/3 2 noted Ai where i takes one of the door labels, and this choice of prize door is made by the producers of the show. This means if Monty opens a goat door, then the con- We assume in the game that when a random choice needs testant’s probability of winning is the same whether the to be made, all options are chosen with the same proba- contestant chooses to switch the door or not. bility. Hence, we have P (Ai) = 1/3 for all values i. The ψ-ontic Monty Hall game: Antidistinguishability [32, contestant on the show, who doesn’t know which door 46, 47], where there is a measurement for which each out- the prize is behind, gets to pick a door; we label this come identifies that a specific member of a set of quantum as Bj where j takes door labels; given this is a random states was definitely not prepared, is highlighted in the 2 choice, we have P (Bj|Ai) = 1/3, for all values i, j. Next, PBR proof by |hΦi|Ψii| = 0 for all i. We will exploit Monty who knows where the prize is, has to open a goat this to construct our game, which can be thought of as a door, Ck where k takes one door labels. Monty’s decision quantum Ignorant Monty Hall game. is constrained through the game rule that he can’t open For state |Ψ1i in (1), we have the door chosen by the contestant. Hence we have the |hΦ |Ψ i|2 = 0, |hΦ |Ψ i|2 = 1/4, following conditional probabilities: 1 1 2 1 2 2 |hΦ3|Ψ1i| = 1/4, |hΦ4|Ψ1i| = 1/2. (7)  1 , if i = j 6= k,  2 For the other states in (1), the same probability distri- P (Ck | Bj ∩ Ai) = 1, if i 6= j 6= k, (3) bution (0, 1/4, 1/4, 1/2) occur but across the different  0, otherwise. outcomes (2); hence we will focus our game on |Ψ1i, but similar constructions hold for the other states. Once a goat door is opened, Monty offers the contestant The Monty Hall gamification is as follows: There are the option to stick with the original choice or switch to four doors labelled {1, 2, 3, 4}, and these correspond to the other unopened door. By sticking, the contestant’s the different measurement outcomes listed in (2). The probability of opening the prize door is 1/3. Counter- prize door Ai, where i takes one of the door labels, is intuitively, by switching doors, the probability of winning the outcome |Φii that the state |Ψ1i collapses to upon increases to 2/3. This can be seen by computing the non- measurement. For a ψ-ontic game, through the Born 2 zero joint probabilities for all events probabilities (7), we have P (Ai) = |hΦi|Ψ1i| . The contestant on the show doesn’t know what state P (Ai ∩ Bj ∩ Ck) = P (Ck | Bj ∩ Ai)P (Bj|Ai)P (Ai), from (1) is used, and is only aware of the possible mea- surement outcomes (2). Based on this limited informa- and then summing those values for the events where the tion, the contestant randomly picks one of the doors contestant would win by switching. This results in which we denote Bj where j is the corresponding door X 2 label; hence we have P (Bj|Ai) = 1/4, for all values i, j. P (win if switch) = P (A ∩ B ∩ C ) = . (4) i j k 3 Monty’s decision corresponds to the predictions of i6=j6=k quantum theory. He is aware that state |Ψ1i was used, Ignorant Monty Hall: Just as in the Classic case, we and has access to the Born probabilities (7). The door opened by Monty is denoted Ck where k is one of the door have P (Ai) = 1/3 and P (Bj|Ai) = 1/3, for all values i, j. But in this game, Monty doesn’t know what lies behind labels. The main insight to construct this game is that any of the doors. The only constraint is that Monty can’t when Monty opens a goat door, he is opening a door that open the door chosen by the contestant, hence we have has probability zero of having a prize in it. And for our game, a door that definitely does not have a prize in it ( 2 0, if j = k, corresponds to outcome |Φ1i as P (A1) = |hΦ1|Ψ1i| = 0. P (Ck | Bj ∩ Ai) = (5) Hence in this game, Monty will open door C unless the 1 , otherwise, 1 2 contestant has already chosen this door as their pick (as There is now a probability that he will open up the prize Monty can’t open the door chosen by the contestant); door by accident, and thus ending the game: in that case Monty will open one of the other remaining doors with equal probability, and there is a chance he X 1 may open up the prize door as in the Ignorant Monty P (opens prize door) = P (A ∩ B ∩ C ) = . i j k 3 Hall game. From these factors, one can compute, i=k6=j  1 , if j = 1 and k = 2, 3, 4, This implies that the probability that he opens a goat  3 door is 2/3. The joint probability that Monty opens a P (Ck | Bj ∩ Ai) = 1, if j 6= 1 and k = 1, (8) goat door and the contestant wins by switching doors can 0, otherwise. 3

The probability that Monty opens the prize door is From this we compute X 1 P (opens prize door) = P (A ∩ B ∩ C ) = . 3 i j k 12 P (win if stick | opens goat door) = . (12) i=k6=j 11 − 8q This implies that the probability that he opens a goat If a switching strategy is adopted then: door is 11/12. Monty then offers the option to stick or X 1 q switch. Suppose the contestant always sticks with the P (A ∩ B ∩ C ∩ D ) = − , (13) i j k j 3 3 initial choice. Then the probability of winning if sticking i=l6=j6=k and Monty opening a goat door is 4 − 4q P (win if switch | opens goat door) = . (14) X 1 11 − 8q P (A ∩ B ∩ C ) = . i j k 4 i=j6=k Thus the probabilities depend on whether the game is a ψ-ontic or ψ-epistemic game. For value q = 1/4, we With that, we can compute the conditional probability can calculate that P (win if switch | opens goat door) = 1/4 3 P (win if stick | opens goat door); hence for certain ψ- P (win if stick | opens goat door) = = . (9) 11/12 11 epistemic games, switching offers no advantage. Experimental implications: Comparing a ψ-ontic game Suppose the contestant decides to always switch to one to a ψ-epistemic game, Monty opens the prize door less of the other two unopened doors with equal probability often. This corresponds to certain probabilities in the 1/2. Let |Φ i be the outcome switched to and let D l l PBR proof being zero; some work on the experimental be the corresponding door. With that, we can compute tests [24, 48–51] of PBR discuss this exact zero probabil- P (A ∩ B ∩ C ∩ D ) = P (D |C ∩ B ∩ A )P (C | B ∩ i j k j l k j i k j ity as an experimental difficulty. Through our game, we A )P (B |A )P (A ). Hence, the probability of winning if i j i i provide another viewpoint; the difference in the proba- switching and Monty opening a goat door is bilities of winning conditioned that a goat door is opened X 1 are simply different for the two physical scenarios. This P (A ∩ B ∩ C ∩ D ) = . (10) i j k j 3 may provide insights to alternative experimental designs i=l6=j6=k to test PBR. From that, one can calculate Quantum teleportation: Consider the standard pro- tocol [45]. Alice wants to send some unknown state 1/3 4 P (win if switch | opens goat door) = = . (11) |ψi = α|0i + β|1i to Bob. They each possess a mem- 11/12 11 ber of the Bell state |β i = √1 (|00i + |11i). The initial 00 2 In a ψ-ontic game, switching provides an advantage. state is |ψi ⊗ |β00i. Alice applies a CNOT gate to her ψ-epistemic Monty Hall game: In the PBR proof, for qubits, followed by a Hadamard gate to her first qubit. the ψ-epistemic model, there is a non-zero probability q The resulting state can be written as that outcome |Φ i occurs when state |Ψ i is prepared. 1 1 1 This implies that in a ψ-epistemic game, P (A1) = q 6= 0. |00i (α |0i + β |1i) + |01i (α |1i + β |0i) 2 To allow for a comparison with the ψ-ontic game, let  q = q1 + q2 + q3, and with that let the other prize door + |10i (α |0i − β |1i) + |11i (α |1i − β |0i) . (15) probabilities take values P (A2) = (1/4) − q1, P (A3) = (1/4) − q2 and P (A4) = (1/2) − q3. When Alices measures her qubits she gets one of the re- As in the ψ-ontic game, P (Bj|Ai) = 1/4, for all values sults on the left in (16). Bob would then apply the cor- i, j. Monty as a character corresponds to the predictions responding Pauli operator on his qubit to obtain |ψi: of quantum theory (7); he will assume C1 is definitely a 2 00 → Does nothing, goat door since |hΦ1|Ψ1i| = 0. This means the prob- abilities in (8) apply in this game as well. Hence, the 01 → Applies σx = |0i h1| + |1i h0| , probability that Monty opens the prize door 10 → Applies σz = |0i h0| − |1i h1| , X 1 2q 11 → Applies σ σ . (16) P (opens prize door) = P (A ∩B ∩C ) = + . z x i j k 12 3 i=k6=j Bob receives the two bits from Alice in (16) through a This implies that the probability that Monty opens a goat classical channel. This protocol has been extended to door is (11/12) − (2q/3). The probability of winning if probabilistic cases [52–54] and noisy cases [55–59]. always sticking and that Monty opens a goat door is Monty Hall teleportation: For our first application, we want to modify the standard teleportation protocol into X 1 P (A ∩ B ∩ C ) = . a Monty Hall game. Alice can be viewed as Monty, and i j k 4 i=j6=k Bob as the contestant. The four doors are respectively 4 labelled (00, 01, 10, 11). This coincides with Alice’s pos- possibilities which we denote ef and given its a random sible measurement results in (16); the prize door is Al- choice, each occur with probability 1/2. Let Def repre- ice’s actual result, whose bits we denote ab, and what sent that door, and P (win if switch) is Bob would need get the desired state |ψi. The contes- X 3 tant’s initial choice of door would be equivalent to what P (A ∩ B ∩ C ∩ D ) = . (20) ab 00 cd ef 8 Bell state was used at the start of the protocol. In this ab=ef6=cd6=00 modification, the contestant is allowed to choose any of the four doors (00, 01, 10, 11), which we denote xy. This This means Bob should apply one of the two operators event coincides with using Bell state (switch) rather than do nothing (stick) to get state |ψi. Unreliable teleportation: For our second application, 1 x consider the standard teleportation protocol with the fol- |βxyi = √ (|0i |yi + (−1) |1i |y¯i), (17) 2 lowing unreliability: one of the two bits (either the first or second) Alice sends to Bob in (16) is received but the wherey ¯ is the negation of y. As an example, if the con- other is lost; each event occurs with probability 1/2. If testant chooses door 01, then a way to implement this the initial Bell state is |β i and Alice’s result is 00, then is that Bob applies the operator (σ ⊗ σ ) |β i = |β i, 00 0 z 00 01 Bob can do nothing. But in this scenario, if Bob re- and communicates that to Alice; the last step would be ceives the single bit as 1, then the possible options are analogous to Monty being aware of what door the contes- 01, 10, or 11; in this case he should apply one of the op- tant chooses. In this modified protocol, the initial state is erators (switch). If Bob receives bit 0, then his options |ψi |β i. After Alice applies a CNOT gate to her qubits xy are 00, 01, 10. Should he stick (to 00) or switch (to 01 or followed by a Hadamard gate the resulting state is 10)? To answer this, let us use the notation developed. 1 |00i (α |yi + β(−1)x |y¯i) + |01i (α(−1)x |y¯i + β |yi) We have P (B00) = 1 and P (Aab) = 1/4 . Let d in 2 Cd be the single bit received by Bob; based on the sce- x x  + |10i (α |yi − β(−1) |y¯i) + |11i (α(−1) |y¯i − β |yi) . nario described above, we have P (C0 | B00 ∩ A00) = 1, P (C0 | B00 ∩ A01) = 1/2, and P (C0 | B00 ∩ A10) = 1/2. At this step, Alice measures her qubits to get her result. We can compute the probability that Bob receives bit 0: If Alice’s result is ab = xy, meaning it coincides with the X 1 Bell state used |βxyi, then Bob has to do nothing and he P (received bit 0) = P (C ∩ B ∩ A ) = . 0 00 ab 2 has the desired state |ψi (the exception is if the initial ab6=11 Bell state used was |β11i in which case Bob has to apply If Bob decides to always do nothing then this would be operator (−σ0) to get |ψi if result is 11). This is why the contestant’s initial choice relates to the Bell state used. like a sticking strategy. The probability that bit 0 is In this Monty Hall protocol, Alice sends Bob two bits received and Bob wins by sticking is P (A00 ∩B00 ∩C0) = as in (16) with the following modification: she chooses 1/4. Hence we can compute the conditional probability: two bits denoted cd (ie goat door) that are not xy (ie 1/4 1 contestant’s initial choice) and are not ab (ie prize door). P (win if stick | received bit 0) = = . (21) 1/2 2 Should Bob do nothing, or apply one of the possible op- erators (which depend on what Bell state was used) to If an always switching strategy is adopted, then there are get |ψi ie should the contestant stick or switch? two possibilities (01 or 10) each occuring with probability To answer this, let Bxy be the door chosen by con- 1/2. In this case probability of winning if switched and testant. For this example, assume we use |β00i, hence bit 0 is received is P (A01 ∩ B00 ∩ C0 ∩ D01) + P (A10 ∩ P (B00) = 1. Let Aab be the prize door and due to Born B00 ∩ C0 ∩ D10) = 1/8. With that we compute, probabilities we have P (Aab) = 1/4. Let Ccd be the goat 1/8 1 door opened by Monty whose probabilities, from the pro- P (win if switch | received bit 0) = = . (22) tocol description, work out as: 1/2 4

 1 It is an advantage to stick ie Bob should do nothing.  3 , if 00 = ab 6= cd,  This strategy may used as an error-correcting design for P (C | B ∩ A ) = 1 , if 00 6= ab 6= cd, (18) cd 00 ab 2 reliability issues in practical quantum networks [60, 61]  0, otherwise. Conclusions: We have reformulated PBR theorem into If Bob always does nothing (ie, stick strategy), then a Monty Hall game. We argue that future investigation of Monty Hall concepts applied to antidistinguishability X 2 scenarios will lead to novel quantum protocols. P (win if stick) = P (A ∩B ∩C ) = . (19) ab 00 cd 8 Acknowledgments: DR was indirectly supported by the ab=006=cd Marsden fund, administered by the Royal Society of New Suppose Bob decides to always apply one of the two op- Zealand. MV was directly supported by the Marsden erators (ie, switch strategy). Then there are one of two fund, administered by the Royal Society of New Zealand. 5

[21] D. Kurzyk and A. Glos, “Quantum inferring acausal structures and the Monty Hall problem”, Quantum In- formation Processing, 15, 4927–4937 (2016). [1] J.S. Bell, “On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox”, [22] C. Zander, M. Casas, A. Plastino, and A.R. Plastino, Physics Physique Fizika, 1, 195 (1964). “Positive operator valued measures and the quantum [2] N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Monty Hall problem”, Anais da Academia Brasileira de Wehner, “Bell nonlocality”, Reviews of Modern Physics, Ciˆencias, 78, 417–422 (2006). 86, 419 (2014). [23] S. Paul, B.K. Behera, and P.K. Panigrahi, “Playing [3] N. Brunner, and N. Linden, “Connection between Bell quantum Monty Hall game in a quantum computer”, nonlocality and Bayesian game theory”, Nature commu- arXiv:1901.01136 [quant-ph] (2019). nications, 4, 2057 (2013). [24] M.F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, “On the reality [4] A. Roy, A. Mukherjee, T. Guha, S. Ghosh, S.S. Bhat- of the quantum state”, Nature Physics, 8, 475 (2012). tacharya, and M. Banik, “Nonlocal correlations: Fair and [25] N. Harrigan, and R.W. Spekkens, “Einstein, incomplete- unfair strategies in Bayesian games”, Physical Review A, ness, and the epistemic view of quantum states”, Foun- 94, 032120 (2016). dations of Physics, 40, 125–157 (2010). [5] M. Banik, S.S. Bhattacharya, N. Ganguly, T. Guha, A. [26] P.G. Lewis, D. Jennings, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, Mukherjee, A. Rai, and A. Roy, “Two-qubit pure entan- “Distinct quantum states can be compatible with a single glement as optimal social welfare resource in Bayesian state of reality”, Physical Review Letters, 109, 150404 game”, Quantum, 3, 185 (2019). (2012). [6] A. Pappa, N. Kumar, T. Lawson, M. Santha, S. Zhang, E. [27] M. Schlosshauer, and A. Fine, “Implications of the Diamanti, and I. Kerenidis, “Nonlocality and conflicting Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph quantum no-go theorem”, Phys- interest games”, Physical Review Letters, 114, 020401 ical Review Letters, 108, 260404 (2012). (2015). [28] S. Aaronson, A. Bouland, L. Chua, and G. Lowther, “ψ- [7] M.L. Almeida, J. Bancal, N. Brunner, A. Ac´ın,N. Gisin, epistemic theories: The role of symmetry”, Physical Re- and S. Pironio, “Guess your neighbors input: a multipar- view A, 88, 032111 (2013). tite nonlocal game with no quantum advantage”, Physi- [29] M.K. Patra, S. Pironio, and S. Massar, “No-go theorems cal Review Letters, 104, 230404 (2010). for ψ-epistemic models based on a continuity assump- [8] P.J. Coles, M. Berta, M. Tomamichel, and S. Wehner, tion”, Physical Review Letters, 111, 090402 (2013). “Entropic uncertainty relations and their applications”, [30] M. Schlosshauer and A. Fine, “No-go theorem for the Reviews of Modern Physics, 89, 015002 (2017). composition of quantum systems”, Physical Review Let- [9] P. J. Coles, V. Katariya, S. Lloyd, I. Marvian, and ters, 112, 070407 (2014). M.M. Wilde, “Entropic energy-time uncertainty rela- [31] S. Mansfield, “Reality of the quantum state: towards a tion”, Physical Review Letters, 122, 100401 (2019). stronger ψ-ontology theorem”, Physical Review A, 94, [10] J. Eisert, M. Wilkens, and M. Lewenstein, “Quantum 042124 (2016). games and quantum strategies”, Physical Review Letters, [32] M.S. Leifer, “Is the quantum state real? An extended re- 83, 3077 (1999). view of ψ-ontology theorems”, Quanta, 3, 67–155 (2014). [11] S.C. Benjamin, Simon C and P.M. Hayden, “Multiplayer [33] D. Jennings, and M. Leifer, “No return to classical real- quantum games”, Physical Review A, 64, 030301 (2001). ity”, Contemporary Physics, 57, 60–82 (2016). [12] F.S. Khan, N. Solmeyer, R. Balu, and T.S. Humble, [34] M.S. Leifer, and M.F. Pusey, “Is a time symmet- “Quantum games: a review of the history, current state, ric interpretation of quantum theory possible without and interpretation”, Quantum Information Processing, retrocausality?”, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: 17, 309 (2018). Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 473, [13] A. Rodriguez and B. Mendes, Probability, decisions and 20160607 (2017). games: a gentle introduction using R. (John Wiley & [35] M.S. Leifer, “ψ-epistemic models are exponentially bad Sons, 2018). at explaining the distinguishability of quantum states”, [14] J.S. Rosenthal, “Monty Hall, Monty fall, Monty crawl”, Physical Review Letters, 112, 160404 (2014). Math Horizons, 16, 5–7 (2008). [36] J. Barrett, E.G. Cavalcanti, R. Lal, and O.J.E. Maroney, [15] R. Gill, “Monty Hall problem”, International Ency- “No ψ-epistemic model can fully explain the indistin- clopaedia of Statistical Science, 858–863 (2010). guishability of quantum states”, Physical Review Letters, [16] S. Lucas, J. Rosenhouse, and A. Schepler, “The Monty 112, 250403 (2014). Hall problem, reconsidered”, Mathematics Magazine, 82, [37] C. Branciard, “How ψ-epistemic models fail at explain- 332–342 (2009). ing the indistinguishability of quantum states”, Physical [17] C. Li, Y. Zhang, Y. Huang, and G. Guo, “Quantum Review Letters, 113, 020409 (2014). strategies of quantum measurements”, Physics Letters [38] A. Montina, “Epistemic view of quantum states and com- A, 280, 257–260 (2001). munication complexity of quantum channels”, Physical [18] A.P. Flitney and D. Abbott, “Quantum version of the Review Letters, 109, 110501 (2012). Monty Hall problem”, Physical Review A, 65, 062318 [39] A. Montina, “Communication complexity and the reality (2002). of the wave function”, Modern Physics Letters A, 30, [19] G.M. D’Ariano, R.D. Gill, M. Keyl, B. K¨ummerer,H. 1530001 (2015). Maassen, and R.F. Werner, “The quantum Monty Hall [40] C. Perry, R. Jain, and J. Oppenheim, “Communication problem”, Quant. Inf. Comput., 2, 355-466 (2002). tasks with infinite quantum-classical separation”, Physi- [20] S. Khan, M. Ramzan, and M.K. Khan, “Quantum Monty cal Review Letters, 115, 030504 (2015). Hall problem under decoherence”, Communications in [41] S. Bandyopadhyay, R. Jain, J. Oppenheim, and C. Perry, Theoretical Physics, 54, 47 (2010). “Conclusive exclusion of quantum states”, Physical Re- 6

view A, 89, 022336 (2014). ity of the wavefunction”, Nature Physics, 11, 249 (2015). [42] S. Arunachalam, A. Molina, and V. Russo, “Quan- [51] K. Liao, X. Zhang, G. Guo, B. Ai, H. Yan, and S. Zhu, tum hedging in two-round prover-verifier interactions”, “Experimental test of the no-go theorem for continuous arXiv:1310.7954 [quant-ph] (2017). ψ-epistemic models”, Scientific reports, 6, 26519 (2016). [43] W.C. Myrvold, “ψ-ontology result without the Cartesian [52] W. Li, C. Li, and G. Guo, “Probabilistic teleportation product assumption”, Physical Review A, 97, 052109 and entanglement matching”, Physical Review A, 61, (2018). 034301 (2000). [44] C.H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´epeau, R. Jozsa, A. [53] H. Lu, and G. Guo, “Teleportation of a two-particle en- Peres, and W.K. Wootters, “Teleporting an unknown tangled state via entanglement swapping”, Physics Let- quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky- ters A, 276, 209–212 (2000). Rosen channels”, Physical Review Letters, 70, 1895 [54] P. Agrawal, and A.K. Pati, “Probabilistic quantum tele- (1993). portation”, Physics Letters A, 305, 12–17 (2002). [45] M.A. Nielsen and I.L Chuang, Quantum computation [55] R. Fortes, and G. Rigolin, “Fighting noise with noise in and quantum information. (Cambridge University Press, realistic quantum teleportation”, Physical Review A, 92, 2010). 012338 (2015). [46] C.M. Caves, C.A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, “Conditions for [56] R. Fortes, and G. Rigolin, “Probabilistic quantum tele- compatibility of quantum-state assignments”, Physical portation in the presence of noise”, Physical Review A, Review A, 66, 062111 (2002). 93, 062330 (2016). [47] T. Heinosaari, and O. Kerppo, “Antidistinguishability of [57] L.T. Knoll, C.T. Schmiegelow, and M.A. Larotonda, pure quantum states”, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- “Noisy quantum teleportation: An experimental study ical and Theoretical, 51, 365303 (2018). on the influence of local environments”, Physical Review [48] D. Nigg, T. Monz, P. Schindler, E.A. Martinez, M. Hen- A, 90, 042332 (2014). nrich, R. Blatt, M.F. Pusey, T. Rudolph, and J. Barrett, [58] G.G. Carlo, G. Benenti, and G. Casati, “Teleportation in “Can different quantum state vectors correspond to the a noisy environment: a quantum trajectories approach”, same physical state? An experimental test”, New Jour- Physical Review Letters, 91, 257903 (2003). nal of Physics, 18, 013007 (2015). [59] D. Kumar, and P.N. Pandey, “Effect of noise on quantum [49] D.J. Miller, “Alternative experimental protocol to teleportation”, Physical Review A, 68, 012317 (2013). demonstrate the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph theorem”, [60] C. Simon, “Towards a global quantum network”, Nature Physical Review A, 87, 014103 (2013). Photonics, 11, 678 (2017). [50] M. Ringbauer, B. Duffus, C. Branciard, E.G. Cavalcanti, [61] J. Ren, P. Xu, H. Yong, L. Zhang, S. Liao, J. Yin, W. Liu, A.G. White, and A. Fedrizzi, “Measurements on the real- W. Cai, M. Yang, L. Li, Li et al., “Ground-to-satellite quantum teleportation”, Nature, 549, 7670 (2017).