Bayesian Nash Equilibria & Bell Inequalities

Taksu Cheon (Kochi Tech)

Talk presented at KEK Workshop Stability and Instability, Mar. 23, 2007 Copyright, T.Cheon & Associates, 2007

Plan of the Talk

Why should we care about Game Theory? Introduction to game theory Game strategy in joint probability formalism Quantum strategy Bell inequality and quantum gain in certain games

A Game against Nature

Strategy choice
1-Q Q

1-P

0 1

1 0

0 3

Probabilistic Play Payoff

(P ) = (1 P )(1 Q) + 3P Q
= (1 Q) (1 4Q)P

Two Best Responses depending on Q

P = 0, P = 1,
P = ,

= 3/4

= 1 Q (Q 1/4)
(Q = 1/4)

= 3Q (Q 1/4)

A Game against Human

Human can think independently Ai thinks that Bill also wants higher payoff

Ai\Bl
d 0

1 0
1-Q

0 3
Q

1-P

Best Response to Best Response: Nash Equilibrium (P , Q ) = (0, 0), Pareto Efficient N.E.
(P , Q ) = (1, 1),

=1 =3

Battle of Sexes

Men Women are obstinate Ai\Bl Rule of the game can be cruel Two conflicting Nash E.
(P , Q ) = (0, 0), (P , Q ) = (1, 1),
0 1

1\3 0
1-Q

0 3\1
Q

1-P

(Ai , Bl ) = (1, 3) (Ai , Bl ) = (3, 1)

Two N.E. coexist in ensemble of pairs

5

Rock-Scissors-Paper Game

No dominant strategy Ai\Bl No apparent Nash E. Random play is best for both
P0 = P1 = P2 = 1/3

0 1 2

-\+ +\+\- 0 -\+ -\+ +\- 0

0

=0

: Mixed Nash Equilibrium

Both just break even (Stop telling trivialities...)

6

Calculating Payoffs
MAB
0 1 2

0
M00 M10 M20

1
M01 M11 M21

2
M02 M12 M22

PAB
0 1 2

0
P0Q0 P1Q0 P2Q0

1
P0Q1 P1Q1 P2Q1

2
P0Q2 P1Q2 P2Q2

Payoff Matrix
MAB

Joint Probability Matrix

PAB = PA QB

Payoff is calculated as
Ai =
A,B

(Strategy)

PAB MAB

Lizards R-S-P Game

Animals Play Games Uta Stansburiana: male behavioral types Guardian Usurper Sneaker Population ratio 1:1:1 irrespective to underlying genetics
8

Elements of Game Theory

Payoff matrix (game table) Joint probability (strategy) Payoff Ai =

A,B

MAB

LAB

PAB = PA QB

PAB MAB PAB LAB

A,B

Bl =

Nash Equilibria (solutions)

P Ai |(P Q Bl |(P
,Q ) ,Q )

=0 =0
9

plus edge solutions

Dominant Strategy & Prisoners Dilemma

One good choice for all occasion: Dominant strategy Bad Dominant Nash
(P , Q ) = (0, 0),

Ai\Bl
0 bd 1 gd go

1\1 0\5

5\0

3\3

(Ai , Bl ) = (1, 1)

Less than Pareto efficient (3,3) Conflict between Personal Gain & Public Good
10

PD with Punishers
MAB

b=0 90%

b=1 10% 0
-20 0 0 0

A\B
a=0
90%

1
-25 3 -5 0

0 1 0 1

1 0
-1 0

5 3
0 0

a=1
10%

Undercover Punisher [Type 1]

Multisector Game of Incomplete Information PD can be made to have Pareto-Nash Equilibrium

11

Multi-Sector Game

Type [a], [b] with mixtures S[a], T[b] Payoff Matrices for Ai and Bill
[ab] MAB , [ab] LAB

Joint strategy with Type Locality assumption Sector Payoffs

[ab] Ai

[ab] PAB

[a] [b] PA QB
[ab] Bl

=
A,B

[ab] [ab] PAB MAB

=
A,B

[ab] [ab] PAB LAB

Total Payoffs

[ab] =
a,b
12

S [a] T [b] [ab]

Game Theory is Here to ...

Understand System of Autonomous Agents Solve System Design Inefficiency ... Economics Sociology Political Sciences Magnagement Robotics Understand the Law of Unintended Consequences

13

Defects of Current Theories

Aesthetic Ugly math with underlying probability vector and arbitrary matrix Technical Hard to include player correlation by its construction Nanotechnological Need eventually to handle quantum devices

14

Hilbert Space Game Theory

Many-body dynamics described indirectly with Matrix and Probability distribution : reminiscent of quantum mechanics la von Neumann Why assume a priori that Probability Distributions to be real P0+P1+..+PN-1=1, Q0+Q1+..+QN-1=1? Try Probability Distribution aus Unitary Vector! Sidestep Decision-Locality (no correlation) possible?
15

PAB = | AB| |

Minimal Quantum Theory

Measurement along z-axis of a Spin Desired probability with proper

| = U |1 = ei sin |0 + cos |1
P0 = | 0| |2 = cos2 , P1 = | 1| |2 = sin2

| = U |0 = cos |0 + ei sin |1

Independent measurements of two Spins yield paradoxical results showing nonlocality

P00 = | 00| |2 = 1/2 , P10 = | 10| |2 = 0 P11 = | 11| |2 = 1/2 , P01 = | 01| |2 = 0
16

| = (|00 |11 )/ 2

Player Action & Probability

Classical Strategy : Individual Probabilities

[a] PA

: Ai,

[b] QB

: Bill

[ab] PAB

[a] [b] PA QB

Quantum Strategy : Individual Unitary Actions

[a] U

: Ai,

[b] V

: Bill

[ab] PAB

=|
[b]

[a] [b] AB| U V

| |2

When | = |00 , back to Classical w. identifications : Play Strategy PA (QB) = Adjust angle ()
[a] PA = | A| U |0 |2 and QB = | B| V |0 |2 [a] [b]

17

Multisector Quantum Game

Type [a], [b] with mixtures S[a], T[b]

[ab] Payoff Matrices for Ai and Bill MAB , L[ab] AB

Joint strategy with quantum actions U and V on [ab] [a] [b] 2 Sector Payoffs
[ab] Ai

PAB = | AB| U V | ) |
=
A,B [ab] [ab] PAB MAB [ab] Bl

=
A,B

[ab] [ab] PAB LAB

Total Payoffs

[ab] =
a,b
18

S [a] T [b] [ab]

ITC Quantum Strategy

Aida

i | = cos |00 + e sin |11 2 2

Nonlocality: Results of an action of Ai seems affected by action of Bill (et vice versa)
19

[a]

Implementation 1) Pre-game calibration with =0 2) Game play with full state

[ab] ITC Scheme P AB

B
[ b]

Bluebeard

|(, )

Rigoletto

Cereceda Game

A two-sector Incomplete Information extension of Battle of Sexes Game

M\L
b=0 50% b=1 50% 0
-1 \ -3 0 -3 \ -1 0

A\B
a=0
50%

1
0 -3 \ -1 0 -1 \ -3

0 1 0 1

1\3 0 0 3\1
-1 \ -3 0 0 -3 \ -1

a=1
50%

20

Classical and Quantum PAB

Distribute
Q0

[ab] PAB

to get high score

Q1
0.1 0.4 0 0.5

V0

V1

P0 P1

0.2 0.8 0 1

0 0 0 0

0.1 0.4 0 0.5

U0 U1

0.43 0.07 0.07 0.43 0.07 0.43 0.43 0.07 0.07 0.43 0.07 0.43 0.43 0.07 0.43 0.07

PAB = P Q

Classical strategy
21

Quantum strategy

PAB = | U V |2

Classical Nash Equilibria

Random play results in Negative Payoff Eight Nash E. : examples -->

Ai = Bl = 0

1
0 0

0 0 0 0

1
0 0

0 0 0 0

1
0 0 0 0

1
0 0 0 0
PAB
[ab]

Inequitable Split in BoS sector

[00] Ai [00] Ai [00] Ai

1
0

1
0

= 0, = 3, = 1,

[00] Bl [00] Bl [00] Bl

=0 =1 =3

1
0

1
0

22

Quantum Nash Equilibrium

Maximally entangled state

= 2 0 0 = /8 1 0 = 5/8 0 1 = 3/8

1 2 = cos 2 8

1 2 = sin 2 8

PAB
[ab]

Beat classical logic

Ai = Bl

= 4 2 = 4

Equitable Split in BoS sector

[00] Ai

[00] Bl

=0.427 =0.073

23

Bell Inequality

Gedanken experiment on dichotomic 2 x 2 system Ais spin measured in settings a = 0, 1, projection A = 0, 1 (sA=(-1)A) Bills spin measured in settings b = 0, 1, projection B = 0, 1 (sB=(-1)B) With Local Realism,
[00] P00 [00] P11
[ab] PAB

satisfy
[11] P11 [11] P00

[10] P00 [10] P11

[01] P00 [01] P11

24

0 0

Cereceda

Bell & Quantum Nash

Payoff of Cereceda Game

Ai

Bl

Positive payoffs are result of nonlocal strategy Never achieved with classical strategies
25

1 [00] [10] [01] [11] = (P00 P00 P00 P11 ) 4 3 [00] [10] [01] [11] + (P11 P11 P11 P00 ) 4 3 [00] [10] [01] [11] = (P00 P00 P00 P11 ) 4 1 [00] [10] [01] [11] + (P11 P11 P11 P00 ) 4

1 -1

-1

-1

1 -1 -1

-1

Anatomy of Quantum Move

Identify
[ab] P00 [ab] P10 [ab]

[a] P1

= sin ,
2 [a]

[b] Q1

= sin2 [b]

= cos = cos

P01 = cos2 P11 = cos2

[ab]

[a] [b] P0 Q0 + sin2 2 [a] [b] P1 Q0 + sin2 2 [a] [b] P0 Q1 + sin2 2 [a] [b] P1 Q1 + sin2 2

[a] [b] P1 Q1 + cos sin 2 [a] [b] P0 Q1 cos sin 2 [a] [b] P1 Q0 cos sin 2 [a] [b] P0 Q0 + cos sin 2

P0 P1 Q0 Q1

[a]

[a]

[b]

[b]

[a] [a] [b] [b] P0 P1 Q0 Q1

P0 P1 Q0 Q1 P0 P1 Q0 Q1
[a] [a] [b]

[a]

[a]

[b]

[b]

[b]

1st+2nd terms: Game-Symmetrizer / Altruism 3rd term: Quantum Interference / Nonlocality

| = cos
26

|00 + ei sin |11 2 2

Altruism and Nonlocality

Altruism most visible in = /2, = /2 case

[ab] PAB

1 [a] [b] 1 [a] [b] = PA QB + PB QA 2 2

(since

[ab] MAB

[ab] LBA )

[ab] Ai

[ab] Bl

1 = 2

[ab] (MAB A,B

[ab] [a] [b] LAB )PA QB

A local, thus classical correlation (cheap talk)

Nonlocal and altruistic in = /2, = 0 case

[ab] Ai

=
A

[ab] MAA

cos ( ) +
2 [a] [b]

[ab] MAB A=B

sin2([a] [b] )

27

Some Observations

In joint probability formalism, Quantum Strategy is a natural extension of Classical Strategy Separation of control variable and probability -> Correlated and Nonlocal Strategies inclusive Concept of Control (strategy) and Gain (payoff) to Quantum Information and Quantum Metaphysics Mathematics mostly understood, now set for practical application!
28

Future Directions (gen)

Do quantum game experiment! Dynamical (evolutionary) quantum game theory N player quantum games Application in auction, finance? Application in quantum information processing!
(proper 2-particle control to enhance desired phenomena)
29

Future Directions (pro)

More general 2 player games (more C-ineq. exist) Other Schemes to generate quantum strategies Inclusion of mixed state (or already included?) General Hermitian game (or already in formalism?)
Aida
[ab] CT Scheme PAB

Rigoletto
J(1 , 2 )

Bluebeard

[a]

[b]

30

References

T.Cheon Homepage http://www.mech.kochi-tech.ac.jp/cheon/ T.Cheon and A.Iqbal, Quantum strategies and Bell inequalities, in Proc. SPIE workshop Fluctuations and Noise, Firenze, May 2007. T.Ichikawa, I.Tsutsui and T.Cheon, arXiv.org, quantph/0702167. T.Cheon, Europhys. Lett. 69 (2005) 149-155.
31