Quantum Decision Theory ∗
Adam Brandenburger
†Pierfrancesco La Mura
‡Version 07/09/14
Abstract
We argue that, contrary to conventional wisdom, decision theory is not invariant to the physical environment in which a decision is made. Specifically, we show that a decision maker (DM) with access to quantum information resources may be able to do strictly better than a DM with access only to classical information resources. In this respect, our findings are somewhat akin to those in computer science that have established the superiority of quantum over classical algorithms for certain problems. We treat three kinds of decision tree (Kuhn [21, 1950], [22, 1953]): Kuhn trees in which the DM does or does not have perfect recall, and non-Kuhn trees.
1 Introduction
Until recent years, it was widely believed that the theory of computing could be developed without attention to the particular physical components (silicon, copper, etc.) from which computers are built. The conventional view of decision theory is similar: The physical embodiment of a decision problem is of no consequence to the theory.
There is now an extremely active line of research into the possibilities that quantum computing would afford, which shows that the old point of view of computing was wrong. Prominent examples of quantum algorithms that have been proved superior to classical algorithms are the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm [9, 1992] for distinguishing constant and so-called balanced functions, Grover’s algorithm [14, 1996] for searching an unsorted database, and Shor’s algorithm [34, 1997] for finding prime factors. The purpose of this paper is to argue that the conventional point of view in decision theory is also wrong. We will show that the availability of quantum information resources can make a sharp difference to decision making.
2 Quantum vs. Classical Information
To set the stage, we need to begin with how classical information resources impinge on decision making. In this respect, we are interested in what happens when a decision maker (DM) has access
∗We are grateful to Samson Abramsky, Jerome Busemeyer, Lucy Brandenburger, Adan Cabello, Ignacio Esponda, Artem Kaznatcheev, Elliot Lipnowski, Hong Luo, Gus Stuart, Natalya Vinokurova, Noson Yanosfsky, Sasha Zolley, and seminar audiences at the CUNY Graduate Center, NYU, Yale, and the workshop “Quantum Physics Meets TARK” in Groningen (July 2011) for extremely valuable comments, and to the NYU Stern School of Business, J.P.
Valles, and the HHL – Leipzig Graduate School of Management for financial support.
†Stern School of Business and IISDM, New York University, New York, NY 10012, U.S.A., [email protected], adambrandenburger.com
‡HHL – Leipzig Graduate School of Management, 04109 Leipzig, Germany, [email protected]
arXiv:1107.0237v2 [quant-ph] 10 Jul 2014
to classical signals and can make his choices contingent on (the realizations of) those signals. Under one interpretation, the issue is whether this extra resource of signals leads to an improvement in the DM’s position. Under a second interpretation, signals are assumed to be omnipresent in the environment, and the analysis of decision making with signals is simply the correct analysis of decision making.
What is meant by the distinction between classical and quantum signals? The key difference is scale. Classical signals are encoded in the macroscopic state of some physical system — for example, in an electrical current or pulses of light (or even in smoke signals . . . ). By contrast, quantum signals are encoded in the microscopic state of a system — for example, in the spin of an electron or in the polarization of a photon.
The special feature of quantum signals is that they can not only be correlated but also be entan- gled, where this term refers to exotic correlations that cannot arise in the classical case. Historically, the phenomenon of entanglement was seen as a conceptually troublesome aspect of quantum me- chanics, but the modern view is that it is actually a distinctive and valuable resource. In the past twenty-five years, various information-theoretic tasks that are impossible to perform classically have been shown to be both possible and implementable using quantum resources. Quantum cryptog- raphy has now entered the practical arena (e.g., Qiu [32, 2014]), while progress towards building a quantum computer continues (e.g., Widera [38, 2014]).
In this paper, we carry out a somewhat analogous exercise in the case of decision theory. We ask:
Does giving a DM access to quantum, not just classical, signals lead to an improvement in what the DM can achieve? We will identify conditions under which this is indeed the case.
3 Decision Making
Kuhn [21, 1950], [22, 1953] introduced into game theory the fundamental distinction between perfect and imperfect recall. Perfect recall says that a player remembers all his previous choices and everything he previously knew. (Obviously, this is not yet a formal definition of perfect recall;
see Appendix A.) While the vast majority of work in game theory and decision theory (the concept applies unchanged to the latter) limits itself to such situations, this is surely for reasons of simplicity.
More realistically, a DM may well be subject to resource bounds, including imperfect recall.
left right
Left Right Left Right
Out In
2 0 0
2 1
(2/3) (1/3)
I2 I1
Figure 1
Figure 1 depicts a simple example of a decision tree in which the DM has imperfect recall. The circular node belongs to Nature and the numbers in parentheses gives the probabilities of Nature’s move. The square nodes belong to the DM. At the information set I2, the DM does not remember his previous choice (if any).
Intuitively, once a DM has imperfect recall, the availability of signals might help him. Signals might be able in some fashion to carry information through the tree which the DM is unable to carry himself — information which might aid him in his decision making. Still, it is not immediately obvious what type of signal would be required to bring about this benefit nor how the benefit would vary according to the type of memory limit involved. Table 1 gives a summary of the effects we find.
Type of tree:
Type of signal:
None Classical Quantum Perfect-recall
Kuhn 0 0 0
Imperfect-recall
Kuhn 0 0 +
Non-Kuhn 0 + ++
Table 1
The entry in each cell indicates the improvement in expected payoff that the DM can achieve as each type of signal becomes available. In the first row, where the DM has perfect recall, neither classical nor quantum signals lead to any improvement in the best expected payoff that the DM can achieve. In the second row, when the DM has imperfect recall, classical signals yield no improvement, but quantum signals may do so. This, then, is the first place where classical and quantum theories of decision making diverge, and is our main finding.
We call a decision tree (which might have perfect or imperfect recall) a Kuhn tree if every path from the root of the tree to a terminal node passes through each information set at most once;
otherwise, it is a non-Kuhn tree.1 Intuitively, a non-Kuhn tree indicates that the DM exhibits a more ‘serious’ type of memory limitation as compared with even an imperfect-recall Kuhn tree.
Non-Kuhn trees were first studied by Isbell [18, 1957]. The third row of Table 1 says that, unlike in Kuhn trees, a DM may benefit even from access to classical signals (and may benefit further from access to quantum signals).
4 Signals
I
Left Right Left Right
Figure 2
We give two formulations of the idea that a DM has access to signals. Until we say otherwise, we assume that at each of his information sets, the DM may observe the value of a random variable
1Kuhn’s definition of a tree includes this condition—hence our terminology. Appendix A provides full details.
(r.v.) and is allowed to make his choice contingent on the realization of that r.v.. The r.v.’s may be correlated (i.e., dependent) across information sets. Figure 2 shows part of some decision tree containing an information set I, and Figure 3 shows the corresponding part of the tree when aug- mented with signals of this first type. Here, the signal at I is a simple coin toss, on which the DM can peg his choice.
Left Right
Heads Tails Heads Tails
Left Right
Left Right Left Right
SAME COIN
Figure 3
Our second formulation assumes that, even within one information set, at different nodes the DM may observe the values of different r.v.’s. But, we do require that the different r.v.’s at the given information set are exchangeable. (In particular, they must have the same range.) Figure 4 is the analog to Figure 3. We proceed with our first formulation of signals. Later, we will investigate what changes under the second formulation.2
Left Right
Heads Tails Heads Tails
Left Right
Left Right Left Right
EXCHANGEABLE COINS
Figure 4
Our introduction of signals can be interpreted in two different ways. Under one interpretation, the DM literally sets up or engineers quantum signals. He does this because if he is subject to some kind of memory limit, such signals can (at least, partially) make up for this deficit. The technology
2One can argue that the second view of signals is conceptually superior. The idea of an information set is that the DM cannot distinguish among the nodes in it — not that there is only one node. So, when we add signals, it seems right to allow different signals at different nodes, provided that the signals are indistinguishable, and indistinguishability is ensured by exchangeability. If two decision nodes in the same information set are physically distant, it seems all the more appropriate to allow different signals at each.
to use quantum information resources in this way now exists. A second interpretation is that signals
— including quantum signals — are already present in the environment. Indeed, they may actually be a constituent of memory. This is a highly speculative interpretation. While there is evidence of quantum effects in biological systems (Fleming et al. [12, 2011]), the issue of whether or not quantum processes are involved in the operation of the brain is a contentious one (Litt et al. [26, 2006]). Of course, our paper cannot add to the actual neuroscience of this issue, but, it does show how, in principle, entanglement creates a memory-like effect.
5 Literature
We relate our paper to two literatures — one on ‘quantum-like’ decision theories and the other on quantum games.
A stream of papers (Busemeyer et al. [6, 2006], Lambert Mogiliansky et al. [23, 2009], La Mura [25, 2009]), Pothos and Busemeyer [31, 2009], Temzelides [37, 2010], among others) builds ‘quantum- like’ decision theories. These papers study decision making in the classical, not quantum, world.
But, the approach is quantum-like in that various characteristically quantum features, such as non- commutativity or superposition, are present in the mathematics. The setting for our paper is the quantum world, since the DM makes explicit use of quantum resources.
Cabello and Calsamiglia [7, 2005] and Frackiewicz [13, 2011] investigate quantum decision theory, as we do. Both papers study the well-known Absent-Minded Driver’s Problem (Rubinstein and Piccione [29, 1997]), which is a non-Kuhn tree. The first paper also studies an imperfect-recall Kuhn tree. Kuhn trees are our main focus, although we do look later at the Absent-Minded Driver’s Problem.
An important objective for us — not always clear in the literature — is to set the appropriate baseline. We first establish what improvement a DM can achieve with classical signals, relative to no signals. We consider this improvement the appropriate classical baseline. We then ask when quantum signals can improve relative to this baseline, not just relative to no signals at all.
There is a growing literature on quantum games, starting with Meyer [28, 1999] and Eisert, Wilkens, and Lewenstein [10, 1999] and including contributions from both the physics and game- theory communities. Examples of contributions from the latter include La Mura [24, 2005], Kargin [19, 2008], and Dahl and Landsburg [8, 2011]. We can relate our paper to the quantum-games literature by thinking of a decision problem as a coordination game among agents. The contribution of our paper to this literature can then be seen as providing a classification (perfect- or imperfect- recall Kuhn, non-Kuhn) of trees for coordination games, according to whether or not quantum improvements are possible. Of course, studying quantum decision theory can also simply be viewed as logically prior to studying quantum game theory.
Hillas, Kohlberg, and Pratt [17, 2007] and Stein, Parrilo, and Ozdaglar [35, 2010] are other papers connecting exchangeability and classical correlation (in games, rather than in decision problems).
6 Signal Structures
Return to the decision tree of Figure 1. The DM’s expected payoffs are: 2/3 from the strategy In-Left, 4/3 from In-Right, 1/3 from Out-Left, and 5/3 from Out-Right. The highest expected payoff is therefore 5/3.
Figure 5 adds two coin tosses to Figure 1. There is one coin toss at information set I1 and another — possibly correlated — coin toss at I2. The DM can make his choices contingent on the outcomes of the tosses. Note carefully how we have drawn the tree. At information set I2 in Figure
1, the DM does not remember how he previously moved (or even if he did). In Figure 5, the same is true, and he also does not remember the outcome of the coin toss at I1. This seems to us to be the right assumption to make, to be consistent with the memory constraint in the first tree.
left right
In
1
(2/3) (1/3)
Heads1 Tails1
Out
In
1 Out
0 Tails2
Right
2 Left
2
0 Right
Left
0
2 Right Left
0 Right
2 Left
2
0 Right
Left
0
2 Right Left
Heads2 Heads2 Heads2
Tails2 Tails2
Figure 5
We now describe the probabilistic structure of the coin tosses in a way which will seem somewhat unconventional, but which will be very helpful when we come to contrast quantum with classical signals. Each possible path through a decision tree crosses certain information sets of the DM in a certain order. A signal structure associates to each string of information sets that arises in this fashion, a probability measure on the product space of the associated signals. In the example of Figure 5, the strings of information sets that can arise are I1, I2, and I1I2. Figure 6 gives the general form of the associated probability measures. Here α through θ are numbers between 0 and 1 satisfying α + β = 1, γ + δ = 1, and + ζ + η + θ = 1.
Consider the strategy for the DM (in the augmented tree of Figure 5) that: (i) chooses Out if the coin at information set I1comes up Heads1 (H1), and In if the coin at I1comes up Tails1 (T1);
and (ii) chooses Left if the coin at information set I2 comes up Heads2 (H2), and Right if the coin at I2 comes up Tails2 (T2). The DM’s expected payoff is then:
1/3 × (α × 1 + η × 2 + θ × 0) + 2/3 × (γ × 0 + δ × 2).
If α = 0, δ = 1 (so that γ = 0), and η = 1 (so that θ = 0), then the DM then gets an expected payoff of 2, which is greater than the best possible (5/3) without signals.
H2 T2
H1 ε ζ
T1 η θ
Pr
I1I2
H2 T2
γ δ
H1 T1
α β
Pr
I1
Pr
I2
Figure 6
7 No Signaling Condition
On a closer look, it is apparent that the information structure of Figure 6 when α = 0 and δ = η = 1 is conceptually unsatisfactory. The second coin comes up Heads (H2) almost surely if it is tossed after the first coin has been tossed, but comes up Tails (T2) almost surely if it is tossed when the first coin has not been tossed. If we allow this amount of information ‘flow’ between the two coins, it is not surprising that we can engineer an improvement for the DM over the case of no coins. What is needed is a condition that rules out such information flow, without going so far as to rule out all correlation between the coins. Here is a suitable condition:
No Signaling Condition Consider two strings of information sets and the two associ- ated signal probability measures. The marginals of these two measures — with respect to common sub-strings — must agree.
We will discuss this condition in a moment (and comment on its potentially confusing name).
First, let’s see how it works in the signal structure of Figure 6. Looking at the two strings I1 and I1I2, with common sub-string I1, we see that the condition is that the probabilities of H1 must be equal: α = + ζ. Likewise, looking at the two strings I2 and I1I2, with common sub-string I2, we see that the condition is that the probabilities of H2 must be equal: γ = + η. (Of course, the first (resp. second) condition implies that the probabilities of T1(resp. T2) are also equal.)
The no signaling condition comes from quantum mechanics (Popescu and Rohrlich [30, 1996]) and is usually taken to reflect the limits imposed by special relativity on correlations among physically separated observations.3 Since we take into account in this paper the physical environment of a decision problem, we need to allow the possibility that the signaling devices we add to the tree of Figure 1 to get the tree of Figure 5 are physically distant from each other (cf. Footnote 2). Suppose they are, and suppose that the (probabilistic) outcome of one device depends on how the other device is configured. Arguably then, two experimenters Ann and Bob, one standing at one device and the other at the other device, could share information at a speed faster than light. If so, this would contradict special relativity, which prohibits superluminal signaling.4 It is an important feature of quantum mechanics that it obeys no signaling ([30, 1996]), so that the possibility of a conflict with special relativity is precluded. For the same reason, we will require that any signals we add to our
3The “no signaling” name is standard in quantum mechanics, but can be a bit confusing in decision theory. In particular, the condition does not mean that no signals in the decision-theoretic sense are allowed in a tree!
4Rindler [33, 1991] is a standard introduction to special relativity.
decision trees obey no signaling.5
No signaling rules out the choice of parameters α = 0 and δ = η = 1 we had before in Figure 6.
(This choice contradicts γ = + η.) We can go further. No signaling reduces the five free parameters in Figure 6 to three, which we will take to be , ζ, and η (we will still write θ = 1 − − ζ − η). The expected payoff under the previous strategy can then be written as:
× (1/3 × 1 + 2/3 × 0) + ζ × (1/3 × 1 + 2/3 × 2) + η × (1/3 × 2 + 2/3 × 0) + θ × (1/3 × 0 + 2/3 × 2).
Since this is a convex combination of expected payoffs to the DM in the tree without signals, we see that no improvement in the DM’s (maximum) expected payoff is now possible under signals. The same is easily seen to be true for any other strategy for the tree of Figure 5.
8 Classicality
The example of the previous section might suggest that, provided the no signaling condition is satisfied, the addition of signals to a (Kuhn) decision tree can never result in an increase in the DM’s maximum expected payoff. Table 1 tells us that this is false once quantum signals are allowed, even though, as we have noted, no signaling holds in the quantum domain. We will see an example of this phenomenon in the next section. Before that, we will establish the correct baseline for signals to yield no improvement.
Fix a Kuhn tree, let I1, I2, . . . be the information sets for the DM and ΩI1, ΩI2, . . . be associated finite signal sets which we add.6 Write Ω = ΩI1× ΩI2× · · · .
Classicality Condition There is a probability measure µ on Ω such that for each string Ii1Ii2· · · IiK of information sets that arises in the tree, the associated probability measure is given by:
PrIi1Ii2···IiK = margΩ
Ii1×ΩIi
2×···×ΩIi
K
µ.
Note that this condition is well defined since, in a Kuhn tree, each path through the tree crosses a given information set at most once. Classicality says that there is a joint probability space (Ω, µ) from which a given signal structure, of the kind we explored in the previous section, can be derived.
It is immediate from the properties of marginals that:
Proposition 8.1 Classicality implies no signaling.
Next, let MI1, MI2, . . . be the sets of moves at the DM’s information sets and write M = MI1× MI2× · · · .
Proposition 8.2 Fix a Kuhn tree. The highest expected payoff a DM can achieve with signals satisfying classicality is the same as that without signals.7
5Whether or not compatibility with special relativity necessitates no signaling is not a fully closed question. See Abramsky, Brandenburger, and Savochkin [2, 2014] for a discussion and an alternative argument for no signaling.
For the purpose of this paper, we can content ourselves with observing that quantum mechanics obeys no signaling and therefore, for a correct comparison between the classical and quantum regimes, we should impose no signaling throughout.
6If there is no signal at an information set, the signal space is a singleton. For simplicity, we restrict attention to finite signal sets.
7The proposition implicitly assumes independence between Nature (in the underlying tree) and signals. This becomes clear in the proof. Independence seems like the right assumption for our purpose, which is to analyze signals as memory substitutes (or even memory itself). We do not want signals to give the DM information he never had.
See Appendix B for an example where independence is violated and signals help under classicality.
Proof. A strategy for the DM in the underlying tree is an element m ∈ M . A strategy for the DM in the extended tree with signals is a tuple of maps fI1 : ΩI1 → MI1, fI2 : ΩI2 → MI2, . . ..
Write f = fI1× fI2 × · · · . Also, write π(m) for the expected payoff to the DM in the underlying tree, when he chooses strategy m and we average over Nature. Then, the expected payoff to the DM in the extended tree, when he chooses strategy f (and we again average over Nature), is P
m∈M(µ ◦ f−1)(m) × π(m). That is, in the tree with signals, the expected payoff to any particular strategy is a convex combination of expected payoffs to strategies in the underlying tree.
In decision theory (and game theory), we normally take for granted the existence of a joint probability space that yields whatever signals we have in mind. This makes sense in the classical physical world where the joint probability space can be thought of very literally — as the physical mechanism that yields the signal behavior we want. It turns out that existence or non-existence of this joint space actually defines the classical-quantum divide, as we will explain in the following sections. This is why we are justified in using the label “classicality” for the existence condition.
9 Quantum Improvement
We now show:
Proposition 9.1 There is a Kuhn tree (with imperfect recall) in which the DM can achieve a higher expected payoff with quantum signals than with any classical signals.
Up1
(1/4) (1/4)
(1/4) (1/4) 0
0
I1 I2
Down1
I3 Up3
Down3
0
−M Up3
Down3
Up1 0
Down1 Up4
Down4
0 Up4
Down4
−M
0
Up2
Down2
Up3
Down3
−M 0
Up3
Down3 0 0
I4
Up2
Down2
Up4
Down4 +m
0
Up4
Down4 0 0
Figure 7
The decision tree of Figure 7 will to establish this claim. We assume that the payoffs satisfy 0 < m < M . We first show that the DM’s expected payoff with classical signals is at most 0. To see this, start without signals. Observe that the only way for the DM to get the +m payoff (with positive probability) is if he chooses Up2at information I2and Up4at information set I4. But then, to avoid the −M payoff on the right side of the tree, he must choose Down3 at I3. Then, to avoid the upper −M payoff on the left side, he must choose Up1 at I1. Then, to avoid the lower −M payoff on the left side, he must choose Down4 at I4, not Up4 as we supposed. It follows that the +m payoff cannot arise unless at least one −M payoff also arises. Moreover, it will arise with the same probability. Since M > m, we have shown that the DM’s expected payoff is at most 0. Now
use Proposition 8.2 to conclude that the DM’s highest possible expected payoff in any extended tree with classical signals is also 0.
Next, consider the signal structure of Figure 8.
H4 T4
H1 0 Φ
T1 Φ3 Φ4 H3 T3 H1 Φ3 Φ2 T1 Φ2 0
Pr
I1I3 H3 T3H2 0 Φ3 T2 Φ Φ4
Pr
I2I3
H4 T4 H2 Φ5 Φ4 T2 Φ4 Φ
Pr
I2I4Pr
I1I4
Figure 8 Here, Φ = 2/(1 +√
5) and is the inverse of the Golden Ratio. One can check that the no signaling condition is satisfied (use the fact that Φ2+ Φ = 1). Now consider the following strategy for the DM in the extended tree: (i) at I1, choose Up1after H1and Down1after T1; (ii) at I2, choose Up2 after H2 and Down2after T2; (iii) at I3, choose Up3after H3and Down3 after T3; (iv) at I4, choose Up4
after H4 and Down4 after T4. The DM’s expected payoff from this strategy is 1/4 × Φ5× m > 0.
An improvement in the DM’s highest expected payoff is achieved.
By Proposition 8.2, we know that the signal structure of Figure 8 cannot be realized classically.
But it can be realized quantum mechanically, as we now describe. The physical mechanism involves the creation of what is called an entangled pair of particles.8 The basic set-up is that two particles — two photons, for example — are prepared in a special state and sent off on different trajectories. Each particle then enters a detector, placed some distance from the source on that particle’s trajectory.
Detectors have various settings, and the setting chosen determines which property of a particle is measured. For example, a detector might be set to measure the so-called spin of a photon along a particular direction. The outcome of each measurement is binary and can take one of two values, conventionally labelled spin +1 or spin −1.
Such a quantum system can be used to generate the signal structure of Figure 8. The spin of one particle is measured at information set I1 or I2. It is measured along one direction at I1 and along another direction at I2. In either case, the measurement has two possible outcomes. We call them Heads1or Tails1, and Heads2or Tails2, respectively. The spin of the second particle is measured at information set I3or I4. It is measured along one direction at I3 and along another direction at I4. Again, in either case, the measurement has two possible outcomes. We call them Heads3 or Tails3, and Heads4 or Tails4, respectively. This gives us the form of the signal structure of Figure 8. The specific probabilities come from the preparation of a particular entangled quantum state (Hardy [15, 1993], Mermin [27, 1994]).
8For an introduction to quantum entanglement, see Susskind [36, 2012].
10 Non-Existence of a Joint Probability Space
It is instructive to see directly (rather than via appeal to Proposition 8.2) why the signal structure of Figure 8 cannot be derived from a joint probability space (Ω, µ). We can take Ω to be as depicted in Table 2:9
I1 I2 I3 I4
ω0 H1 H2 H3 H4
ω1 H1 H2 H3 T4
ω2 H1 H2 T3 H4
ω3 H1 H2 T3 T4
ω4 H1 T2 H3 H4
ω5 H1 T2 H3 T4
ω6 H1 T2 T3 H4
ω7 H1 T2 T3 T4
ω8 T1 H2 H3 H4
ω9 T1 H2 H3 T4
ω10 T1 H2 T3 H4
ω11 T1 H2 T3 T4
ω12 T1 T2 H3 H4
ω13 T1 T2 H3 T4
ω14 T1 T2 T3 H4
ω15 T1 T2 T3 T4
Table 2
so that µ is a probability measure on the set {ω0, . . . , ω15}. Now let’s try to derive the signal structure of Figure 8. The conditions PrI1I3(Tails1, Tails3) = 0, PrI2I3(Heads2, Heads3) = 0, and PrI1I4(Heads1, Heads4) = 0 require, respectively:
µ(ω10) + µ(ω11) + µ(ω14) + µ(ω15) = 0, µ(ω0) + µ(ω1) + µ(ω8) + µ(ω9) = 0, µ(ω0) + µ(ω2) + µ(ω4) + µ(ω6) = 0, while the condition PrI2I4(Heads2, Heads4) = Φ5> 0 requires:
µ(ω0) + µ(ω2) + µ(ω8) + µ(ω10) > 0, which is then impossible.
In quantum mechanics this impossibility argument is usually described as a strengthened version of the famous Bell’s Theorem (Bell [3, 1964]). (The strengthening is precisely the point of Hardy [15, 1993].) The lesson of Bell’s Theorem is that quantum mechanics allows non-local correlation, that is, dependence among particles that cannot be viewed as arising from common-cause correlation.
The common cause, if it existed, would arise from the operation of extra (usually called hidden) variables present at the source that create the particles. Since quantum mechanics allows correlation
9There is no loss of generality in taking Ω to be of this canonical form. This follows from starting with a general (even infinite) probability space and taking the image measure.
that is not common-cause, and since particles can be physically distant from each other at the point of measurement, the correlation is called non-local.
Locality can be shown to be equivalent, at a very general level, to existence of a joint probability space. Fine [11, 1982] contains early work on this equivalence. Abramsky and Brandenburger [1, 2011] formulate and prove an equivalence in a general sheaf-theoretic setting. It follows that we can attribute the possibility of quantum improvement in decision making either to the non-existence of a joint probability space in quantum mechanics or to the non-locality of quantum mechanics. The first seems a more mathematical explanation and the second more physical. In any case, they are logically equivalent statements of why quantum improvement is possible.
11 Non-Kuhn Trees
We now examine non-Kuhn trees. Such trees were first studied by Isbell [18, 1957]. The tree in Figure 9 is an example of a non-Kuhn tree, due to Piccione and Rubinstein [29, 1997] and dubbed by them the Absent-Minded Driver’s Problem (with an accompanying story explaining the name).
I
In In
Out Out
0 4
1
Figure 9
This is the first place where it matters which of the two formulations of signals in Section 2 we choose. The reason is that, by definition, in a Kuhn tree every path from the root to a terminal node passes through a given information set at most once. This need no longer be the case in a non-Kuhn tree, as Figure 9 indicates. Now, it can make a big difference whether there is one or more than one signal at a given information set. Indeed, suppose we add two coins at the information set I in Figure 9, coin 1 at the node that is the root of the tree and coin 2 at the other node. This gives the tree in Figure 10.
The DM has two information sets in the extended tree of Figure 10 — one where he sees a coin land Heads, and one where he sees a coin land Tails. The three nodes in the first information set are shaded with the right-side-up triangles, and the three nodes in the second information set with upside-down triangles. Finally, suppose the coins have a joint distribution as depicted in Figure 11a or 11b. In accordance with Section 2, both distributions are exchangeable. The first distribution is even i.i.d., while the second exhibits perfect anti-correlation between the coins.
The DM’s best expected payoff in the underlying tree of Figure 9 is 1. Suppose in the extended tree he adopts the strategy: Choose In at the first information set (right-side-up triangles) and Out at the second information set (upside-down triangles). Then, for the signal distribution of Figure 11a, his expected payoff is 1/2 × 0 + 1/4 × 4 + 1/4 × 1 = 5/4 > 1. The possibility of improvement using i.i.d. signals in non-Kuhn trees was already noted in Isbell [18, 1957]. Under exchangeability, the DM can do even better. For the signal distribution of Figure 11b, his expected payoff is 1/2 × 0 + 1/2 × 4 = 2.
In Out
Heads1 Tails1
Heads2 Tails2 Heads2 Tails2
Out
Out Out Out Out
In
In In In In
0 0
4 4 4 4
1 1 1 1
Figure 10
H2 T2 H1 1/4 1/4
T1 1/4 1/4
H2 T2 H1 0 1/2
T1 1/2 0
Figures 11a,b
12 Comments
We have nearly finished filling in the entries in Table 1, which summarized the effects of different types of signals on different types of decision trees. We did, however, skip over the case of perfect- recall Kuhn trees, and went straight to the case of imperfect-recall Kuhn trees (Section 3). We said that it was intuitively clear that it is once the DM has imperfect recall that the availability of signals might help him. Still, for completeness, we should show that any signal — even quantum-mechanical
— cannot help in perfect-recall trees. This is best done using the formal definition of Kuhn trees;
see Appendix A.
The remaining entry in Table 1 to discuss is the case of adding quantum signals to non-Kuhn trees. To show that quantum signals can improve still further on classical signals in this case, we can simply glue together the tree of Figure 7 (where quantum signals improve on classical signals) and the tree of Figure 9 (where classical signals improve on no signals). This would yield a non-Kuhn tree where quantum signals improve on classical signals.
There is an interesting alternative line of argument that says that the distributions of Figure 11, which we used to show classical improvement in a non-Kuhn tree, need to be implemented quantum- mechanically. This is the approach in Cabello and Calsamiglia [7, 2005] and Frackiewicz [13, 2011].
The former argue for this route on the basis that classical systems — in this case, a coin toss at each node — are ultimately distinguishable. They prefer to view the tables in Figure 11 as quantum mechanical, on the argument that indistinguishability is then guaranteed from basic principles (the quantum state is a complete description). We are not convinced that the use of classical signals
to create the distributions of Figure 11 is invalid. After all, it is a respectable position that small differences in initial conditions of classical systems — in this case, in the initial rate of spin of the coin, for example, and in many other factors — may not be fully observable. We prefer to argue for an effect of classical signals in non-Kuhn trees, and for an additional effect of quantum signals.
A Definition of a Kuhn Tree
The presentation in this section follows those in Hart [16, 1992] and Brandenburger [4, 2007].
Definition A.1 A (finite) Kuhn decision tree consists of:
(a) A set of two players, one called the decision maker (DM) and the other called Nature.
(b) A finite rooted tree.
(c) A partition of the set of non-terminal nodes of the tree into two subsets denoted N (with typical element n) and M (with typical element m). The members of N are called decision nodes, and the members of M are called chance nodes.
(d) A partition of N (resp. M ) into information sets denoted I (resp. J ) such that for each I (resp. J ):
(i) all nodes in I (resp. J ) have the same number of outgoing branches, and there is a given 1-1 correspondence between the sets of outgoing branches of different nodes in I (resp.J );
(ii) every path in the tree from the root to a terminal node crosses each I (resp. J ) at most once.
For each information set I (resp. J ), number the branches going out of each node in I (resp. J ) from 1 through #I (resp. #J ) so that the 1-1 correspondence in (d.i) above is preserved.
Definition A.2 A strategy (for the DM) associates with each information set I, an integer between 1 and #I, to be called the DM’s choice at I. Let S denote the set of strategies for the DM. A state of the world (or state) associates with each information set J , an integer between 1 and #J to be called the choice of Nature at J . Let Ψ denote the set of states.
Note that a pair (s, ψ) in S × Ψ induces a unique path through the tree.
Definition A.3 Fix a node n in N and a strategy s. Say n is allowed under s if there is a state ψ such that the path induced by (s, ψ) passes through n. Say an information set I is allowed under s if some n in I is allowed under s.
Definition A.4 Say the DM has perfect recall if for any strategy s, information set I, and nodes n and n∗ in I, node n is allowed under s if and only if node n∗ is allowed under s.
Definition A.5 Say a node n in N is non-trivial if it has at least two outgoing branches.
Define a relation of precedence on the DM’s information sets I, as follows: Given two information sets I and I0, say that I precedes I0 if there are nodes n in I and n0 in I0 such that the path from the root to n0 passes through n. It is well known that if the DM has perfect recall and all decision nodes are non-trivial, then this relation is irreflexive and transitive, and each information set I has
at most one immediate predecessor. (Proofs of these assertions can be found in Brandenburger [4, 2007, Appendix], or can be constructed from arguments in Wilson [39, 1972].)
Kuhn [22, 1953, p.213] observes that perfect recall implies that the DM remembers: (i) all of his choices at previous nodes; and (ii) everything he knew at those nodes. The following two lemmas formalize these observations. (The proofs are in [4, 2007, Appendix].)
Lemma A.6 Suppose the DM has perfect recall and all decision nodes are non-trivial. Fix infor- mation sets I and I0, and strategies s and s0. Suppose that I0 is allowed under both s and s0, and I precedes I0. Then I is allowed under both s and s0, and s and s0 coincide at I.
Next, write:
[I] = {ψ : I is allowed under ψ}.
Lemma A.7 Suppose the DM has perfect recall and all decision nodes are non-trivial. Fix infor- mation sets I and I0. If I0 succeeds I, then [I0] ⊆ [I].
We can now justify the entries in the first row of Table 1 in Section 3. Fix a perfect-recall tree and an information set in the tree. Given that the DM remembers all of his choices at previous nodes, and everything he knew at those nodes, the only effect of a signal (classical or quantum) at the information set can be to change the DM’s probabilities about the state of the world. But, we have assumed (Footnote 7 in Section 8 and Appendix B below) independence between Nature and signals, so no such change is possible.
B Correlation Between Nature and Signals
Consider the imperfect-recall decision tree depicted in Figure B.1, and the joint distribution of a coin toss at the DM’s information set, and Nature’s move, depicted in Figure B.2. The DM gets an expected payoff of 1 (in fact, 1 almost surely) by choosing Left after Heads and Right after Tails.
His expected payoff in the underlying tree is 1/2 (regardless of his strategy).
Left Right Left Right
left (1/2) (1/2) right
1 0 0 1
Figure B1
left right Heads 1/2 0
Tails 0 1/2
Figure B2
This shows that Proposition 8.2 is false in the absence of the independence assumption between Nature and signals. Brandenburger [5, 2010] highlights the key role this assumption also plays in the quantum games literature.
References
[1] Abramsky, S., and A. Brandenburger, “The Sheaf-Theoretic Structure of Non-Locality and Con- textuality,” New Journal of Physics, 13, 2011, 113036.
[2] Abramsky, S., A. Brandenburger, and A. Savochkin, “No-Signalling Is Equivalent To Free Choice of Measurements,” forthcoming in Proceedings of 2013 Workshop on Quantum Physics and Logic.
[3] Bell, J., “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox,” Physics, 1, 1964, 195-200.
[4] Brandenburger, A., “A Note on Kuhn’s Theorem,” in van Benthem, J., D. Gabbay, and B. Loewe (eds.), Interactive Logic: Proceedings of the 7th Augustus de Morgan Workshop, Texts in Logic and Games 1, Amsterdam University Press, 2007, 71-88.
[5] Brandenburger, A., “The Relationship Between Quantum and Classical Correlation in Games,”
Games and Economic Behavior, 69, 2010, 175-183.
[6] Busemeyer, J., Z. Wang, and J. Townsend, “Quantum Dynamics of Human Decision-Making,”
Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50, 2006, 220-241.
[7] Cabello, A., and J. Calsamiglia, ”Quantum Entanglement, Indistinguishability, and the Absent- Minded Driver’s Problem,” Physics Letters A, 336, 2005, 441-447.
[8] Dahl, G., and S. Landsburg, “Quantum Strategies in Noncooperative Games,” Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 139, 2011, 4423-4434.
[9] Deutsch, D., and R. Jozsa, “Rapid Solution of Problems by Quantum Computation,” Royal Society of London Proceedings Series A,439, 1992, 553-558.
[10] Eisert, J., M. Wilkens, and M. Lewenstein, “Quantum Games and Quantum Strategies,” Phys- ical Review Letters, 83, 1999, 3077-3080.
[11] Fine, A., “Hidden Variables, Joint Probability, and the Bell Inequalities,” Physical Review Letters, 48 1982, 291?295.
[12] Fleming, G., S. Huelga, and M. Plenio, “Focus on Quantum Effects and Noise in Biomolecules,”
New Journal of Physics, 13, 2011, 115002.
[13] Frackiewicz, P., “Application of the EWL Protocol to Decision Problems with Imperfect Recall,”
2011, available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.0806.
[14] Grover, L., “A Fast Quantum Mechanical Algorithm for Database Search,” Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1996, 212-219.
[15] Hardy, L., “Nonlocality for Two Particles without Inequalities for Almost All Entangled States,”
Physical Review Letters, 71, 1993, 1665-1668.
[16] Hart. S., “Games in Extensive and Strategic Form,” in Aumann, R., and S. Hart (eds.), Hand- book of Game Theory, Vol. 1, North-Holland, 1992, 19-40.
[17] Hillas, J., E. Kohlberg, and J. Pratt, “Correlated Equilibrium and Nash Equilibrium as an Observer’s Assessment of the Game,” 2007, available at www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/08-005.
pdf.
[18] Isbell, J., “Finitary Games,” in Drescher, M., A. Tucker, and P. Wolfe (eds.), Contributions to the Theory of Games, Vol. III, Annals of Mathematics Study, 39, 1957, Princeton University Press, 79-96.
[19] Kargin, V., “On Coordination Games with Quantum Correlations,” International Journal of Game Theory, 37, 2008, 211-218.
[20] Koch, C., and K. Hepp, “Quantum Mechanics in the Brain,” Nature, 440, 2006, 611-612.
[21] Kuhn, H., “Extensive Games,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36, 1950, 570-576.
[22] Kuhn, H., “Extensive Games and the Problem of Information,” in Kuhn, H., and A. Tucker (eds.), Contributions to the Theory of Games, Vol. II, Annals of Mathematics Study, 28, 1953, Princeton University Press, 193-216.
[23] Lambert Mogiliansky, A., S. Zamir, and H. Zwirn, “Type Indeterminacy: A Model of the KT(Kahneman-Tversky)-Man,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 2009, 349-361.
[24] La Mura, P., “Correlated Equilibria of Classical Strategic Games with Quantum Signals,”
International Journal of Quantum Information, 3, 2005, 183-188.
[25] La Mura, P., “Projective Expected Utility,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 53, 2009, 408-414.
[26] Litt, A., C. Eliasmith, F. Kroon, S. Weinstein, and P. Thagard, “Is the Brain a Quantum Computer?” Cognitive Science, 20, 2006, 593-603.
[27] Mermin, N.D., “Quantum Mysteries Refined,” American Journal of Physics, 62, 1994, 880-887.
[28] Meyer, D., “Quantum Strategies,” Physical Review Letters, 82, 1999, 1052-1055.
[29] Piccione, M., and A. Rubinstein, “On the Interpretation of Decision Problems with Imperfect Recall,” Games and Economic Behavior, 20, 1997, 3-24.
[30] Popescu, S., and D. Rohrlich, “Quantum Nonlocality as an Axiom,” Foundations of Physics, 24, 1994, 379-385.
[31] Pothos, E., and J. Busemeyer, “A Quantum Probability Model Explanation for Violations of
‘Rational’ Decision Theory,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276, 2009, 2171-2178.
[32] Qiu, J., “Quantum Communications Leap Out of the Lab,” Nature, 508, 2014, 441-442.
[33] Rindler, W., Introduction to Special Relativity, Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1991.
[34] Shor, P., “Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Prime Factorization and Discrete Logarithms on a Quantum Computer,” SIAM Journal of Computing, 26, 1997, 1484-1509.
[35] Stein, N., P. Parrilo, and A. Ozdaglar, “Exchangeable Equilibria in Symmetric Bimatrix Games,” presentation at the Second Brazilian Workshop of the Game Theory Society, Univer- sity of S˜ao Paulo, July-August 2010.
[36] Susskind, L., “Entanglement,” Lecture 6 in Quantum Mechanics, Winter 2012, Stanford University, at http://theoreticalminimum.com/courses/quantum-mechanics/2012/winter/
lecture-6.
[37] Temzelides, T., “Modeling the Act of Measurement in the Social Sciences,” Journal of Mathe- matical Economics, 46, 2010, 607-615.
[38] Widera, A., “The Advantages of Extra Entanglement,” Science, 344, 2014, 160-161.
[39] Wilson, R., “Computing Equilibria of Two-Person Games from the Extensive Form,” Manage- ment Science, 18, 1972, 448-460.
