Paper detail

Quantum Strategic Game Theory

We propose a simple yet rich model to extend the notions of Nash equilibria and correlated equilibria of strategic games to the quantum setting, in which we then study the relations between classical and quantum equilibria. Unlike the previous work that focus on qualitative questions on specific games of small sizes, we address the following fundamental and quantitative question for general games: How much "advantage" can playing quantum strategies provide, if any? Two measures of the advantage are studied, summarized as follows. 1. A natural measure is the increase of payoff. We consider natural mappings between classical and quantum states, and study how well those mappings preserve the equilibrium properties. Among other results, we exhibit correlated equilibrium $p$ whose quantum superposition counterpart $\sum_s \sqrt{p(s)}\ket{s}$ is far from being a quantum correlated equilibrium; actually a player can increase her payoff from almost 0 to almost 1 in a [0,1]-normalized game. We achieve this by a tensor product construction on carefully designed base cases. 2. For studying the hardness of generating correlated equilibria, we propose to examine \emph{correlation complexity}, a new complexity measure for correlation generation. We show that there are $n$-bit correlated equilibria which can be generated by only one EPR pair followed by local operation (without communication), but need at least $\log(n)$ classical shared random bits plus communication. The randomized lower bound can be improved to $n$, the best possible, assuming (even a much weaker version of) a recent conjecture in linear algebra. We believe that the correlation complexity, as a complexity-theoretical counterpart of the celebrated Bell's inequality, has independent interest in both physics and computational complexity theory and deserves more explorations.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.