As a math guy who loves reality tv, I was also drawn to the show and wrote a blog post [0] about how to programmatically calculate the probabilities as the show progresses. It was a lot of fun optimizing it to be performant. You can `pip install ayto` to use it to follow along with the show or try out scenarios.<p>The linked post is a very thorough treatment of AYTO and a great read. I really like the "guess who" bit on how to maximize the value of guesses. It's a shame the participants aren't allowed to have pen and paper—it makes optimization a lot trickier! I'm impressed they do as well as they do.<p>[0]: <a href="https://danturkel.com/2023/01/25/math-code-are-you-the-one.html" rel="nofollow">https://danturkel.com/2023/01/25/math-code-are-you-the-one.h...</a>
This was great, but it skipped over the most interesting bit - how you actually choose which matchups and truth booths. That is, an actual strategy that contestants could use that doesn't require a computer.
A thing to note - the contestants are not allowed to have even pen and paper, as mentioned in the other blogpost. So they need to do these computations in their heads.
After he described the rules, my immediate reaction was 'this is like mastermind'. Sure enough, further down the page:<p><pre><code> Other than that, in my research I came across a boardgame called Mastermind, which has been around since the 70s. This is a very similar premise - think of it as "Guess Who?" on hard mode.</code></pre>
They have an example that calculates the expected information gained by truth booths and all of the top ones are giving more than one bit. How can this be? It is a yes/no question a max of 1 bit should be possible
The author defines one “bit” as ruling out half the remaining options.<p>So a yes might rule out 75% of remaining options (for example) which provides 2 bits of information.
We have to make a distinction between "expected information gain" vs "maximum information gain". An answer of "yes" generally gains >1 bit, but an answer of "no" generally gains <1 bit, and the average outcome ends up <1. It is impossible for a single yes/no question to have an expected gain of >1; the maximum possible is precisely 1.
The total probabilities add up to 1. But I’m not following how that relates to the average bits.<p>Despite summing to 1, the exact values of P(true) and P(false) are dependent on the options which have previously been discounted. Then those variables get multiplied by the amount of information gained by either answer.
It is definitional, which I mean in the strictest mathematical sense: the information content of a result is directly derived from how “unexpected” it is.<p>A result which conveys 2 bits of information should occur with 25% expected probability. Because that’s what we mean by “two bits of information.”
The article states "Suppose we have calculated the expected information gained by potential truth booths like below: Expected information: 1.60 bits ..." This is impossible because of the general fact in information theory that (p(true) * bits_if_true) + (p(false) * bits_if_false) <= 1. If they had said "Suppose we have calculated the <i>maximum</i> information gained...", then 1.6 bits would be valid. They said "<i>expected</i> information" though, so 1.6 bits is invalid.
So, you have n options, you ask a question, and now you're down to m options.<p>The number of bits of information you gained is -log₂ (m/n).<p>If you ask a question which always eliminates half of the options, you will always gain -log₂ (1/2) = 1 bit of information.<p>If you go with the dumber approach of taking a moonshot, you can potentially gain more than that, but in expectation you'll gain less.<p>If your question is a 25-75 split, you have a 25% chance of gaining -log₂ (1/4) = 2 bits, and a 75% chance of gaining -log₂ (3/4) = 0.415 bits. On average, this strategy will gain you (0.25)(2) + (0.75)(0.415) = 0.8113 bits, which is less than 1 bit.<p>The farther away you get from 50-50, the more bits you can potentially gain in a single question, but - also - the lower the number of bits you expect to gain becomes. You can never do better than an expectation of 1 bit for a trial with 2 outcomes.<p>(All of this is in the article; see footnote 3 and its associated paragraph.)<p>The article explicitly calls out the expectational maximum of one bit:<p>>> You'll also notice that you're never presented with a question that gives you more than 1 expected information, which is backed up by the above graph never going higher than 1.<p>So it's strange that it then goes on to list an example of a hypothetical (undescribed, since the scenario is impossible) yes/no question with an expected gain of 1.6 bits.
Because when it's true, you also learn about any prior match ups involving those two people.
That's not how information works. Learning more from one outcome than the other decreases the probability of that outcome occurring, so the expected information (which is the sum of the outcome probability times the outcome information for each of the two possible outcomes) is always less than or equal to one.<p>If all you can get is a "true" or "false" you expect, at most, one bit of information.
Right - but coming back to the original question, if I'm not mistaken, the explanation is that the blogpost is measuring information gained from an actual outcome, as opposed to _expected_ information gain. An example will help:<p>Say you're trying to guess the number on a 6-sided die that I've rolled. If I wanted to outright tell you the answer, that would be 2.58 bits of information I need to convey. But you're trying to guess it without me telling, so suppose you can ask a yes or no question about the outcome. The maximum of the _expected_ information add is 1 bit. If you ask "was it 4 or greater?", then that is an optimal question, because the expected information gain is min-maxed. That is, the minimum information you can gain is also the maximum: 1 bit. However, suppose you ask "was it a 5?". This is a bad question, because if the answer is no, there are still 5 numbers it could be. Plus, the likelihood of it being 'no' is high: 5/6. However, despite these downsides, it is true that 1/6 times, the answer WILL be yes, and you will gain all 2.58 bits of information in one go. The downside case more than counteracts this and preserves the rules of information theory: the _expected_ information gain is still < 1 bit.<p>EDIT: D'oh, nevermind. Re-reading the post, it's definitely talking about >1 bit expectations of potential matchings. So I don't know!
It's not a yes/no per contestent, it's per edge between contestants. There are n(n-1)/2 of these.<p>A true answer for a potential match is actually a state update for all of the (n-1) edges connecting either contestant, that's 2(n-2) edges that can be updated to be false. Some of these may already be known from previous rounds' matchups but that's still more than a single binary.
An answer of "yes" will generally eliminate many edges, with potential for >1 bit. However, an answer of "no" will generally eliminate just that one edge, which is generally <1 bit.
But you don't receive more than a single binary value; you get a yes or no.<p>If both of these are equally likely, you gain one bit of information, the maximum possible amount. If you already have other information about the situation, you might gain _less_ than one bit on average (because it confirms something you already knew, but doesn't provide any new information), but you can't gain more.
If I’m trying to guess a 9-letter English word, and test whether the first letter is “x”, there are only the same two answers: Yes/No.<p>But “Yes” obviously gives me much more than one bit of the information I need to know the answer.
I’m not really following. But if you’re told that one of A, B, or C is true; you learn more by being told A is True than if you learn D is True, no?
Yes, you learn more than 1 bit in that case. However, if you are told A is false, you still don't know whether B or C is true, so you gain less than 1 bit. Assuming A, B and C all have equal probability, your average/expected information gain is <1 bit.<p>If you ask the question "which of A, B, or C is true?" then you're not asking a yes/no question, and it's not surprising that you expect to gain more than 1 bit of information.
You also learn about other pairings now being impossible.
I would love to know how the author went about constructing those lovely charts. Some library, or done by hand?
I saw an episode of this and felt the contestants didn’t seem that interested in winning the money. Just romance. I was curious how suboptimally they tended to play.
Everything is lined up for sub-optimal play.<p>For a start, the setting is an emotive one. It's not just a numeric game with arbitrary tokens, it's about "the perfect romantic partner." It would take an unusually self-isolating human to not identify who they feel their perfect match should be and bias towards that, subconsciously or consciously. We (nearly) all seek connection.<p>Then, it's reality TV. Contestants will be chosen for emotional volatility, and relentlessly manipulated to generate drama. No-one is going to watch a full season of a handful of math nerds take a few minutes to progress a worksheet towards a solution each week coupled with whatever they do to pass the time otherwise.
I'd watch a game show where you put a variety of math nerds on each team and watch them argue about the optimal strategy. Who's strategy will win? The quant analyst or the bioinformatician? Tune in next week!
We need a ManningCast version of the show. For those unaware, ManningCast is a show following an NFL game with special guests and nontraditional commentary and analysis. Think of it kind of like having the Mannings in the living room while watching an NFL game.<p>In my hypothetical version of "Are you the one?", the math nerds would be giving commentary and explaining the math behind how they'll solve "Are you the one?" while also hilariously explaining how foolish the contestants' theories are.
Need to find out their psycopath screening technique
That's because the real game is occurring both before and after the show in modern reality tv competitions. The goal is to be entertaining and get social media followers and potential invites to further reality tv shows.
Fun post. I'd be interested to know: How many consecutive Truth Booths (or: how many consecutive Match Ups) are needed to narrow down the 10! possibilities to a single one?<p>Discussing "events" (ie, Truth Booth or Match Up) together muddles the analysis a bit.<p>I agree with Medea above that a Truth Booth should give at most 1 bit of information.
> Season 8: In this season, they introduced gender fluidity. Whilst an interesting problem on its own, this would have wreaked havoc on my model.<p>Well I guess free money except for that one. In that one, one of the contestants, Danny, did the math for optimizing their remaining Truth Booths and Match Ups to get it down to a 50/50 shot.
what a nice interactive blogpost, that's amazing all the effort that went into it
> I also pitched this idea to The Pudding, and had a great experience with them nerding out about this subject. Though they didn't take my up on my idea, I left with really great and actionable feedback, and I'm looking forward to my next rejection.<p>Would've been a great Pudding post imo, but oh well, happy to find this nice devblog instead.
I think the part that stings most about this article is when he says, "In my research I came across a boardgame called Mastermind."<p>My lived childhood is old enough to be someone's "research."
This brings up an area that’s been on the edge of my curiosity for years: how do you combine the knowledge of the experts (contestants) with logic to do better either than either strategy individually?<p>It’s mostly about how to elicit the information from the contestants. Once you have the probabilities from them, it seems relatively straightforward.
Highly enjoyable, high effort blogging
If the goal is to find the perfect matching in some maximum number of turns or less, it's possible to do even better by using a full game tree that minimises the maximum <i>height</i> of the tree ( = number of turns required), instead of using information/entropy as done here.<p>Basically, using the entropy produces a game tree that minimises the number of steps needed <i>in expectation</i> -- but that tree could be quite unbalanced, having one or more low-probability leaves (perfect matchings) many turns away from the root. Such a leaf will randomly occur some small fraction of the time, meaning those games will be lost.<p>For concreteness, a game requiring 6 bits of information to identify the perfect matching will take 6 steps <i>on average</i>, and may sometimes require many more; a minimax tree of height 7 will <i>always</i> be solved in at most 7 steps. So if you're only allowed 7 steps, it's the safer choice.
> For concreteness, a game requiring 6 bits of information to identify the perfect matching will take 6 steps on average, and may sometimes require many more<p>I'm not following your logic. Consider the setup we actually have:<p>1. You get to ask a series of yes/no questions. (Ignoring the matchups.)<p>2. Each question can produce, in expectation, up to one bit of information.<p>3. In order to achieve this maximum expectation, it is mathematically necessary to use questions that invariably do produce exactly one bit of information, never more or less. If your questions do not have this property, they will in expectation produce less than the maximum amount of information, and your expected number of steps to the solution will increase, which contradicts your stated goal of minimizing that quantity.<p>You get the minimum number of steps needed in expectation by always using questions with maximum entropy. Yes. But those questions never have any variation in the amount of entropy they produce; a maximum entropy strategy can never take more - or fewer - steps than average.¹<p>¹ Unless the number of bits required to solve the problem is not an integer. Identifying one of three options requires 1.585 bits; in practice, this means that you'll get it after one question 1/3 of the time and after two questions the other 2/3 of the time. But identifying one of 128 options requires 7 bits, you'll always get it after 7 questions, and you'll never be able to get it after 6 questions. (Assuming you're using a strategy where the expected number of questions needed is 7.)
> Score Probability<p>> 0 0.3679<p>> 1 0.3679<p>> 2 0.1839<p>> 3 0.0613<p>> 4 0.0153<p>> 5 0.0031<p>For 0, it's a well known [1] result 1/e, I remember a puzzle where people left their hat and then pick one randomly.<p>Looking at the table it looks like the general formula is 1/(e*n!) that is a Possion distribution. Compare with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution#Examples_of_probability_for_Poisson_distributions" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution#Examples_...</a><p>Anyway, I'm not sure if my observation helps too much to solve the original problem.<p>[1] at least I know it :)
how much free money are we talking here? what are they awarded?