1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % LATEX source code !!! %
3: % %
4: % Authors: %
5: % Sahin Kaya Ozdemir, Junichi Shimamura, %
6: % and Nobuyuki Imoto %
7: % Title: Quantum advantage does not survive %
8: % in the presence of a corrupt source % % Optimal strategies in simultaneous move games %
9: % %
10: % %
11: % %
12: % to be submitted to Phys. Lett. A %
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: %\documentstyle[prl,aps,twocolumn,epsf]{revtex}
15: \documentclass[prl,superscriptaddress,showpacs,twocolumn,epsf]{revtex4}
16: \usepackage{epsfig}
17:
18: \def \I{{\rm i}}
19: \pagestyle{myheadings}
20: \newcommand{\braket}[2]{\langle #1 \,|\, #2 \rangle}
21: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{| \, #1 \rangle}
22: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{ \langle #1 \, |}
23: \def \binom#1#2{{#1\choose #2}}
24: \def \I{{\rm i}}
25: \def \E{{\rm e}}
26: \def \D#1{{D$_#1$}}
27: \def \a#1{{${\hat a}_#1$}}
28: \def \b#1{{${\hat b}_#1$}}
29: %\def \c#1{{${\hat c}_#1$}}
30:
31: \begin{document}
32:
33: %\twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname
34: %@twocolumnfalse\endcsname
35:
36:
37: \title{Quantum advantage does not survive in the presence of a corrupt source: Optimal strategies in simultaneous move games}
38: \author{\c{S}ahin Kaya \"Ozdemir}
39: \author{Junichi Shimamura}
40: \affiliation{SORST Research Team for Interacting Carrier Electronics,
41: CREST Research Team for Photonic Quantum Information,
42: The Graduate University for Advanced Studies (SOKENDAI), Hayama, Kanagawa 240-0193, Japan }
43: \author{Nobuyuki
44: Imoto} \affiliation{SORST Research Team for Interacting Carrier Electronics,
45: CREST Research Team for Photonic Quantum Information,
46: The Graduate University for Advanced Studies
47: (SOKENDAI), Hayama, Kanagawa 240-0193, Japan } \affiliation{NTT
48: Basic Research Laboratories, NTT Corporation, 3-1 Morinosato
49: Wakamiya, Atsugi, Kanagawa 243-0198, Japan}
50:
51: \begin{abstract}
52: Effects of a corrupt source on the dynamics of simultaneous move
53: strategic games are analyzed both for classical and quantum
54: settings. The corruption rate dependent changes in the payoffs and
55: strategies of the players are observed. It is shown that there is
56: a critical corruption rate at which the players lose their quantum
57: advantage, and that the classical strategies are more robust to
58: the corruption in the source. Moreover, it is understood that the
59: information on the corruption rate of the source may help the
60: players choose their optimal strategy for resolving the dilemma
61: and increase their payoffs. The study is carried out in two
62: different corruption scenarios for Prisoner's Dilemma, Samaritan's
63: Dilemma, and Battle of Sexes.
64: \end{abstract}
65: \pacs{02.50.Le, 03.67.-a}
66: \date{\today}
67: \pagestyle{plain} \pagenumbering{arabic} \maketitle
68: %\widetext
69: %\widetext
70: %\vspace*{10mm}]
71: %\begin{multicols}{2}
72:
73: {\bf\textit{a. Introduction:}} Classical game theory has a very
74: general scope, encompassing questions and situations that are
75: basic to all of the social sciences \cite{Books}. There are three
76: main ingredients of a game which is to be a model for real life
77: situations \cite{Books}: The first of these is the rational
78: players (decision makers) who share a common knowledge. The second
79: is the strategy set which contains the feasible actions the
80: players can take, and the third one is the payoff which are given
81: to the players as their profit or benefit when they apply a
82: specific action from their strategy set. When rational players
83: interact in a game, they will not play dominated strategies, but
84: will search for an equilibrium. One of the important concepts in
85: game theory is that of Nash equilibrium (NE) in which each
86: player's choice of action is the best response to the actions
87: taken by the other players. In an NE, no player can increase his
88: payoff by unilaterally changing her action. While the existence of
89: a unique NE makes it easier for the players to choose their
90: action, the existence of multiple NE's avoids the sharp decision
91: making process because the players become indifferent between
92: them. In pure strategies, the type and the number of NE's in a
93: game depend on the game. However, due to von Neumann there is at
94: least one NE when the same game is played with mixed strategies
95: \cite{Books,Books1}. Classical game theory has been successfully
96: tested in decision making processes encountered in real-life
97: situations ranging from economics to international relations. By
98: studying and applying the principles of game theory, one can
99: formulate effective strategies, predict the outcome of strategic
100: situations, select or design the best game to be played, and
101: determine competitor behavior, as well as the optimal strategy.
102:
103: In recent years, there have been great efforts to apply the
104: quantum mechanical toolbox in the design and analysis of games
105: \cite{Eisert1,Du,Eisert2,Meyer,Du2,Johnson3,Ben,Flitney2,Iqbal,Johnson1,Johnson2,Ozdemir}.
106: As it was the same in other fields such as communication and
107: computation, quantum mechanics introduced novel effects into game
108: theory, too. It has proved to have the potential to affect our
109: way of thinking when approaching to games and game modelling.
110: Using the physical scheme proposed by Eisert {\it et al.} (see
111: Fig.\ref{Fig:scheme}) \cite{Eisert1}, it has been shown in several
112: games that the dilemma existing in the original game can be
113: resolved by using the paradigm of quantum mechanics
114: \cite{Eisert1,Du,Eisert2,Meyer,Du2,Johnson3,Ben,Flitney2,Iqbal,Johnson1,Johnson2,Ozdemir}.
115: It has also been shown that when one of the players chooses
116: quantum strategies while the other is restricted to classical
117: ones, the player with quantum strategies can always receive better
118: payoff if they share a maximally entangled state \cite{Text2a}.
119:
120: Quantum systems are easily affected by their environment, and
121: physical schemes are usually far from ideal in practical
122: situations. Therefore, it is important to study whether the
123: advantage of the players arising from the quantum strategies and
124: the shared entanglement survive in the presence of noise or
125: non-ideal components in the physical scheme. In this paper, we
126: consider a corrupt source and analyze its effect on the payoffs
127: and strategies of the players. We search answers for the following
128: two questions: (i) Is there a critical corruption rate above which
129: the players cannot maintain their quantum advantage if they are
130: unaware of the action of the noise on the source, and (ii) How can
131: the players adopt their actions if they have information on the
132: corruption rate of the source.
133:
134: {\bf\textit{b. Eisert's scheme:}} In this physically realizable
135: scheme the quantum version of a two-player-two-strategy classical
136: game can be played as follows: (a) A referee prepares a maximally
137: entangled state by applying an entangling operator $\hat{J}$ on a
138: product state $|f\rangle|g\rangle$ where $\{f,g\}\in\{0,1\}$. The
139: output of this entangler,
140: \begin{figure}[h] \epsfxsize=7cm
141: \epsfbox{Fig1entangler.eps}\caption[]{Physical scheme for playing
142: the quantum version of classical games. The operations inside the
143: dotted boxes are performed by the referee.}\label{Fig:scheme}
144: \end{figure}
145: \noindent which reads
146: $\hat{J}|fg\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[~|fg\rangle+i(-1)^{(f+g)}|(1-f)(1-g)\rangle~]$, is delivered to the players. (b) The players apply their actions,
147: which are SU(2) quantum operations locally on their qubits, and
148: return the resultant state
149: $|\phi\rangle_{\rm{out}}=(\hat{U}_{A}\otimes\hat{U}_{B})\hat{J}|fg\rangle$
150: back to the referee. Operators $\hat{U}_{A}$ and $\hat{U}_{B}$
151: are restricted to two-parameter SU(2) operators given by
152: \begin{eqnarray}\label{N05}
153: \hat{U}=\left(%
154: \begin{array}{ccc}
155: e^{i\phi}\cos\frac{\theta}{2} && \sin\frac{\theta}{2}\\
156: &\\
157: -\sin\frac{\theta}{2} && e^{-i\phi}\cos\frac{\theta}{2} \\
158: \end{array}%
159: \right),
160: \end{eqnarray}
161: \noindent where $0\leq\phi\leq\pi/2$ and $0\leq\theta\leq\pi$. (c)
162: The referee, upon receiving this state, applies
163: $\hat{J}^{\dagger}$ and then makes a quantum measurement
164: $\Pi_{n}=|j \ell\rangle\langle j \ell|$ with $n=2j+\ell$ and
165: $j,\ell\in\{0,1\}$. Then the average payoffs of the players become
166: \begin{eqnarray}\label{N03}
167: &&\$_{A}=\sum_{n} a_{n}\underbrace{\rm{Tr}(\Pi_{n}\hat{J}^{\dagger}\hat{\rho}_{\rm{out}}\hat{J})}_{P_{j \ell}}\nonumber\\
168: &&\$_{B}=\sum_{n}
169: b_{n}\underbrace{\rm{Tr}(\Pi_{n}\hat{J}^{\dagger}\hat{\rho}_{\rm{out}}\hat{J})}_{P_{j
170: \ell}}
171: \end{eqnarray} where $\hat{\rho}_{\rm{out}}=|\phi\rangle_{\rm{out}}\langle \phi|$, $a_{n}$ and
172: $b_{n}$ are the payoffs chosen from the classical payoff matrix
173: when the measurement result is $n$, and $P_{j \ell}$ corresponds
174: to the probability of obtaining $n$. The classical version of the
175: game can be played using the same scheme if the operations
176: corresponding to the classical pure strategies are chosen as
177: $\hat{\sigma}_{0}$ and $i\hat{\sigma}_{y}$.
178:
179: Using this scheme, quantum versions of some dilemma-containing
180: classical games, such as Prisoner's Dilemma (PD), Samaritan's
181: Dilemma (SD) and Battle of Sexes (BoS) whose payoffs matrices are
182: given in Fig.\ref{Fig:Payoffs}, have been studied. In these games,
183: it has been understood that if the referee starts with the state
184: $|fg\rangle=|00\rangle$ generating the entangled state
185: $|\Psi\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[~|00\rangle+i|11\rangle~]$, the
186: players can resolve their dilemma and receive the highest possible
187: total payoff $\$_{A}+\$_{B}$. It has also been shown that the
188: dynamics of the games changes when the referee starts with a
189: different initial state. For example, if the referee starts with
190: $|fg\rangle=|01\rangle$ in SD, four NE's emerge with the same
191: constant payoff making a solution to the dilemma impossible
192: \cite{Ozdemir}.
193:
194: \begin{figure}[h]
195: \epsfxsize=8.7cm
196: \epsfbox{Payoffs.eps}\vspace{-2mm}\caption[]{Payoff matrices for
197: the (I) Prisoner's dilemma (PD), (II) Samaritan's dilemma (SD),
198: and (III) Battle of Sexes (BoS). These games are $2\times2$ games,
199: that is each of the two-players- Alice (Column) and Bob (Row)- has
200: two possible actions. The action sets of the players are: Deny
201: (D) and Confess (C) in PD; Work (W), Loaf (L), Aid (A), and No-aid
202: (N) in SD; Ballet (B), and Football (F) in BoS. The numbers in the
203: parenthesis denote the payoffs received by the players for their
204: action combinations. The first entry in the parenthesis is the
205: payoff for Alice, and the second one is that for
206: Bob.}\label{Fig:Payoffs}
207: \end{figure}
208: \begin{figure}[h] \epsfxsize=7cm
209: \epsfbox{CorruptS1.eps}\caption[]{Model of the source for the
210: scheme in Fig. \ref{Fig:scheme}. The rounded rectangle, which
211: includes $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$, is the source to prepare the initial
212: product state $|f\rangle|g\rangle$. In the ideal source, each of
213: $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ deterministically prepares the spin-down state
214: $|0\rangle$. Hence, at each run of the game, the prepared state is
215: $|f\rangle|g\rangle=|0\rangle|0\rangle$ with probability one. On
216: the other hand, in the corrupt source, $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$ prepare
217: the spin-up state $|1\rangle$ with probability $r$, and the
218: spin-down state with probability $1-r$. Therefore, the input state
219: of the entangler, denoted by $\hat{J}$, becomes a mixture of
220: spin-up and spin-down states.}\label{Fig:corrupt}
221: \end{figure}
222: {\bf\textit{c. Corrupt Source in Quantum Games:}} As we have
223: pointed out above, the initial state from which the referee
224: prepares the entangled state is a crucial parameter in Eisert's
225: scheme. Therefore, any corruption or deviation from the ideality
226: of the source which prepares this state will change the dynamics
227: and outcomes of the game. Consequently, the analysis of situations
228: where the source is corrupt is necessary to shed a light in
229: understanding the game dynamics in the presence of imperfections.
230: We consider the source model shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:corrupt}. This
231: model includes two identical sources constructed to prepare the
232: states $|0\rangle$'s which are the inputs to the entangler at each
233: run of the game. These sources are not ideal and have a
234: \emph{corruption rate}, $r$, that is, they prepare the
235: desired state $|0\rangle$ with probability $(1-r)$ while preparing
236: the unwanted state $|1\rangle$ with probability $r$. The state
237: prepared by these sources thus can be
238: \begin{figure}[h]
239: \epsfxsize=6cm \epsfbox{PD.eps}\caption[]{The payoffs received by
240: the players in Prisoner's Dilemma as a function of corruption
241: rate, $r$, for their quantum, $Q$, and classical, $C$, strategies.
242: The point labelled as $a$ at $r=1/2$ is the transition from
243: quantum advantage to classical advantage while the corruption rate
244: increases. The horizontal dashed line denotes the payoffs of both
245: players for the classical strategy without corruption.
246: }\label{Fig:PD}
247: \end{figure}
248: \noindent written as
249: $\hat{\rho}_{1}=\hat{\rho}_{2}=(1-r)|0\rangle\langle
250: 0|+r|1\rangle\langle 1|$. Then the combined state generated and
251: sent to the entangler becomes
252: $\hat{\rho}_{1}\otimes\hat{\rho}_{2}=(1-r)^{2}|00\rangle\langle
253: 00|+r^{2}|11\rangle\langle 11|+r(1-r)(|01\rangle\langle
254: 01|+|10\rangle\langle 10|)$. This results in a mixture of the
255: four possible maximally entangled states
256: $(1-r)^{2}|\psi^{+}\rangle\langle\psi^{+}|+r^{2}|\psi^{-}\rangle\langle
257: \psi^{-}|+r(1-r)(|\phi^{+}\rangle\langle
258: \phi^{+}|+|\phi^{-}\rangle\langle \phi^{-}|)$, where
259: $|\psi^{\mp}\rangle=|00\rangle\mp i|11\rangle$ and
260: $|\phi^{\mp}\rangle=|01\rangle\mp i|10\rangle$. This is the state
261: on which the players will perform their unitary operators.
262:
263: {\bf\textit{Scenario I:}} In this scenario, the players Alice and
264: Bob are not aware of the corruption in the source. They assume
265: that the source is ideal and always prepares the initial state $|fg\rangle=|00\rangle$, and hence that
266: the output state of the entangler is always $|\psi^{+}\rangle$.
267: Based on this assumption, they apply the operations that is supposed to resolve their dilemma.
268:
269: We have analyzed PD, SD and BoS according to this scenario, and
270: compared the payoffs of the players with respect to the corruption
271: rate. The payoff they receive when they stick to their quantum
272: strategies are compared to the payoffs when they play the game
273: classically. We consider the classical counterparts both with and
274: without the presence of noise in the game. That is, the players
275: use the same physical scheme of the quantum version with and
276: without the corrupt source, and apply their actions by choosing
277: their operators from the set
278: $\{\hat{\sigma}_{0},i\hat{\sigma}_{y}\}$.
279:
280: The results of the analysis according to this scenario are
281: depicted in Figs. \ref{Fig:PD}-\ref{Fig:BoS}. A remarkable result
282: of this analysis is that with the introduction of the corrupt
283: source, the players' quantum advantage is no longer preserved if
284: the corruption rate, $r$, becomes larger than a critical
285: corruption rate $r^{\star}$. At $r^{\star}$, the classical and
286: quantum strategies produce equal payoffs. Another interesting
287: result is the existence of a strategy
288: $\hat{U}_{A}=\hat{U}_{B}=(\hat{\sigma}_{0}+i\hat{\sigma}_{y})/\sqrt{2}$,
289: where the payoffs of the players become constant independent of
290: corruption rate.
291: \begin{figure}[h]
292: \epsfxsize=6cm \epsfbox{WG1.eps}\vspace{-2mm}\caption[]{The
293: payoffs received by the players in Samaritan's dilemma as a
294: function of corruption rate, $r$, for their quantum, $Q_{A},
295: Q_{B}$, and classical, $C_{A},C_{B}$, strategies. The labelled
296: points are as follows: $a$, transition point from $\$_{A}>\$_{B}$
297: (\emph{Case 3} $\leftrightarrow$ \emph{Case 2}), $b$ and $c$ at
298: $r=1/2$, transitions from quantum advantage to classical advantage
299: for Bob and Alice, respectively, for increasing corruption rates.
300: The horizontal solid line denotes the payoff Alice receives in
301: classical strategies when the source is ideal. For Bob, classical
302: strategies with and without noise coincide and are depicted with
303: the horizontal dotted line.}\label{Fig:SD}
304: \end{figure}
305: \noindent This strategy could be attractive
306: for risk avoiding and/or paranoid players.
307:
308: For PD, which is a symmetric game, the optimal classical
309: strategies deliver the payoffs $\$_{A}=\$_{B}=1$ for the actions
310: $\hat{U}_{A}=\hat{U}_{B}=i\hat{\sigma}_{y}$. In the quantum
311: version with an uncorrupt source, the players can get the optimal
312: payoffs $\$_{A}=\$_{B}=3$ if they adopt the strategies
313: $\hat{U}_{A}=\hat{U}_{B}=i\hat{\sigma}_{z}$ \cite{Eisert1}.
314: Hence, the dilemma of
315: the game is resolved and the players receive better payoffs than
316: those obtained with classical strategies. However, as seen in
317: Fig. \ref{Fig:PD}, the payoffs of players with classical and
318: quantum strategies become equal to $2.25$ when $r=r^{\star}=1/2$. If $r$
319: satisfies $0\leq r<1/2$, the quantum version of the game always
320: does better than the classical one. Otherwise, the classical game
321: is better.
322:
323: When the classical version of PD is played with a corrupt source,
324: we find that with increasing corruption rate, while the payoffs
325: for the quantum strategy decrease, those of the classical one
326: increase. That is, if $r>r^{\star}$, then the players would
327: rather apply their classical strategies than the quantum ones.
328: This can be explained as follows: When the players apply
329: classical operations, the game is played as if there is no
330: entanglement in the scheme. That is, players apply their
331: classical operators $i\hat{\sigma}_{y}$ on the state prepared by the
332: source. If the source is ideal, $r=0$, they operate on the
333: $|00\rangle$ which results in an output state $|11\rangle$.
334: Referee, upon receiving this output state and making the
335: projective measurement, delivers $\$_{A}=\$_{B}=1$. On the other
336: hand, when $r=1$, the state from the source is $|11\rangle$ and
337: the output state after the players actions becomes $|00\rangle$.
338: With this output state, referee delivers them the payoffs
339: $\$_{A}=\$_{B}=3$. Thus, when the players apply the classical
340: operator $i\hat{\sigma}_{y}$, their payoffs continuously increase
341: from one to three with the increasing corruption rate from $r=0$
342: to $r=1$.
343:
344: Using a classical mixed strategy in the asymmetric game of SD,
345: the players receive $(\$_{A},\$_{B})=(-0.2,1.5)$ at the NE. In this
346: strategy, while Alice chooses from her strategies with equal
347: probabilities, Bob uses a biased randomization where he applies one of his actions, $\hat{\sigma}_{0}$, with probability
348: $0.2$. The most desired solution to the dilemma in the game is to
349: obtain an NE with $(\$_{A},\$_{B})=(3,2)$. This is achieved when both players
350: apply $i\hat{\sigma}_{z}$ to $|\psi^{+}\rangle$ \cite{Ozdemir}. The dynamics of the payoffs in this game with the corrupt source when
351: the players stick to their operators $i\hat{\sigma}_{z}$ and its
352: comparison with their classical mixed strategy are depicted in
353: Fig. \ref{Fig:SD}. Since this game is an asymmetric one, the
354: payoffs of the players, in general, are not equal. However, with the corrupt source it is found that
355: their payoffs become equal at $r=1/7$ and at $r=1$, where the payoffs are $96/49$ and $0$, respectively.
356: The critical corruption rate, $r^{\star}=1/2$, which denotes the
357: transition from the quantum advantage to classical advantage
358: regions, is the same for both players. While for increasing $r$,
359: $\$_{B}$ monotonously decreases from two to zero, $\$_{A}$ reaches
360: its minimum of $-0.2$ at $r=0.8$, where it starts increasing to
361: the value of zero at $r=1$. It is worth noting that when the
362: players apply their classical mixed strategies in this physical
363: scheme, $\$_{B}$ is always constant and independent of the
364: corruption rate, whereas $\$_{A}$ increases linearly as
365: $\$_{A}=-0.2+0.9r$ for $0\leq r\leq 1$. The payoffs of the players
366: are compared in three cases \cite{Ozdemir}: \emph{Case 1}:
367: $\$_{A}\leq0$ (insufficient solution), \emph{Case 2}:
368: $0<\$_{A}\leq\$_{B}$ (weak solution), and \emph{Case 3}:
369: $0\leq\$_{B}<\$_{A}$ (strong
370: solution). In the corrupt source scenario in quantum strategies, \emph{Case 1} is achieved for
371: $0.6\leq r\leq 1$,\emph{Case 2} is achieved for $1/7\leq r< 0.6$,
372: and finally \emph{Case 3} for $r< 1/7$. The remarkable result of
373: this analysis is that although the players using quantum strategies have high potential gains,
374: there is a large potential loss if the source is deviated from an
375: ideal one. The classical strategies are more robust to corruption
376: of the source.
377:
378: In BoS, which is an asymmetric game, the classical mixed strategies, where Alice and Bob apply $\hat{\sigma}_{0}$ with probabilities $1/3$ and $2/3$
379: or vice versa, the players
380: receive equal payoffs of $2/3$. However, the dilemma is not solved due to the
381: existence of two equivalent NE. On
382: the other hand, when the physical scheme with quantum strategies
383: is used the players can reach an NE where their payoffs
384: become $\$_{A}=1$ and $\$_{B}=2$ if both players apply
385: $i\hat{\sigma}_{y}$ to the maximally entangled state prepared with
386: an ideal source \cite{Note1}. The advantage of this quantum
387: strategy to the classical mixed strategy is that in the former
388: $\$_{A}+\$_{B}$ is higher than the latter. In the presence of
389: corruption in the source, payoffs of the players change as shown
390: in Fig. \ref{Fig:BoS}. With an ideal source, the payoffs reads
391: $(\$_{A},\$_{B})=(1,2)$, however for increasing corruption rate
392: while $\$_{B}$ decreases from two to one,
393: \begin{figure}[h]
394: \epsfxsize=6cm \epsfbox{BoS.eps}\vspace{-2mm}\caption[]{The
395: payoffs received by the players in Battle of Sexes as a function
396: of corruption rate, $r$, for their quantum, $Q_{A}, Q_{B}$, and
397: classical, $C$, strategies. For the increasing corruption rate,
398: the transition from quantum to classical advantage occurs at
399: points labelled as $b$ for $r=0.2$ and $a$ for $r=1/2$,
400: respectively, for Alice and Bob. The second transition that is a
401: transition from the classical to quantum advantage occurs at $a$
402: for $r=1/2$ and $c$ for $r=0.8$, respectively, for Alice and Bob.
403: The point labelled as $a$ is also the transition point from
404: $\$_{B}>\$_{A}$ to $\$_{A}>\$_{B}$. The horizontal dotted line
405: corresponds to the payoffs of the players for their classical
406: strategy when the source is ideal. }\label{Fig:BoS}
407: \end{figure}
408: \noindent $\$_{A}$ increases from
409: one to two. With an completely corrupt source, $r=1$,
410: the payoffs become $(\$_{A},\$_{B})=(2,1)$. The reason for this is the same as
411: explained for PD. When the quantum strategies with and without
412: corrupt source are compared to the classical mixed strategy
413: without noise, it is seen that the former ones always give better
414: payoffs to the players. However, when the source becomes noisy
415: (corrupt), classical strategies become more advantageous to quantum ones with
416: increasing corruption rate. The range of corruption rate where
417: classical strategies are better than the quantum strategy if the
418: players stick to their operations $i\hat{\sigma}_{y}$, are
419: $0.2<r<0.5$ and $0.5<r<0.8$ for Alice and Bob, respectively. When
420: $r=1/2$, $\$_{A}=\$_{B}$ and these payoffs are equal to the ones
421: received with classical mixed strategies. While $\$_{A}=\$_{B}$
422: independently of $r$ for classical mixed strategies, $\$_{A}$ and
423: $\$_{B}$ differ when the players stick to their quantum strategies
424: for $r\neq1/2$. Another interesting result for this game is that,
425: contrary to PD and SD, the strategy
426: $\hat{U}_{A}=\hat{U}_{B}=(\hat{\sigma}_{0}+i\hat{\sigma}_{y})/\sqrt{2}$
427: discussed above always gives a constant payoff $(3/4,3/4)$, which
428: is better than that of the classical mixed strategy.
429:
430:
431: {\bf\textit{Scenario II:}} In this scenario, the referee knows the
432: characteristics of the corruption in the source, and inform the
433: players on the corruption rate. Then the question is whether the
434: players can find a unique NE for a known source with corruption
435: rate $r$; and if they can, does this NE resolve their dilemma in
436: the game or not. When the corruption rate is $r=1/2$, the state
437: shared between the players become $\hat{\rho}=\hat{I}/4$. Then
438: independent of what action they choose, the players receive
439: constant payoffs determined by averaging the payoff entries
440: \begin{table}[h]
441: \begin{center}
442: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
443: \hline &$r$&$~~~~\hat{U}_{A}(\theta_{A},\phi_{A})~~~~$&$~~~~\hat{U}_{B}(\theta_{B},\phi_{B})~~~~$&$(\$_{A},\$_{B})$ \\
444: \hline
445: &$0$& $~~~~(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$&$(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$&$(3,3)$ \\
446: &$1/4$&$~~~~(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$&$(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$&$(\frac{43}{16},~\frac{43}{16})$ \\
447: &$1/2$& $~~~~(\theta_{A},\phi_{A})$\footnotemark[1]&$(\theta_{B},\phi_{B})$\footnotemark[1]&$(\frac{9}{4},~\frac{9}{4})$ \\
448: &$3/4$&$~~~~(0,\frac{\pi}{4})$&$(0,\frac{\pi}{4})$&$(\frac{43}{16},~\frac{43}{16})$ \\
449: &$1$& $~~~~(0,\frac{\pi}{4})$&$(0,\frac{\pi}{4})$&$(3,3)$ \\
450: \hline
451: \end{tabular}
452: \footnotetext[1]{~$\forall \theta_{A},\forall \theta_{B} \in
453: [0,\pi]$ and $\forall \phi_{A},\forall \phi_{B} \in [0,\pi/2]$ }
454: \caption{Strategies which lead to NE's and the corresponding payoffs
455: for the players in Prisoner's Dilemma (PD) if they are provided
456: the information on the corruption rate, $r$, of the source which
457: prepares in the initial product state $|0\rangle|0\rangle$.
458: \label{tab:prob1}}
459: \end{center}
460: \end{table}
461: \begin{table}[h]
462: \begin{center}
463: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
464: \hline &$r$&$~~~~\hat{U}_{A}(\theta_{A},\phi_{A})~~~~$&$~~~~\hat{U}_{B}(\theta_{B},\phi_{B})~~~~$&$(\$_{A},\$_{B})$ \\
465: \hline
466: &$0$& $~~~~(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$&$(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$&$(3,2)$ \\
467: &$1/4$& $~~~~(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$&$(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$&$(\frac{21}{16},~\frac{15}{8})$ \\
468: &$1/2$& $~~~~(\theta_{A},\phi_{A})$\footnotemark[1]\footnotemark[2]&$(\theta_{B},\phi_{B})$\footnotemark[1]\footnotemark[2]&$(\frac{1}{4},~\frac{3}{2})$ \\
469: &$3/4$& $~~~~(0,\phi)$\footnotemark[2]&$(0,\frac{\pi}{2}-\phi)$\footnotemark[2]&$(\frac{21}{16},~\frac{15}{8})$ \\
470: &$1$& $~~~~(0,\phi)$\footnotemark[3]&$(0,\frac{\pi}{2}-\phi)$\footnotemark[3]&$(3,2)$ \\
471: \hline
472: \end{tabular}
473: \footnotetext[1]{~$\forall \theta_{A},\forall \theta_{B} \in
474: [0,\pi]$} \footnotetext[2]{~$\forall \phi_{A},\forall \phi_{B} \in
475: [0,\pi/2]$} \footnotetext[3]{~$\phi\in [0,\pi/4]$}
476: \caption{Strategies which lead to NE's and the corresponding payoffs
477: for the players in Samaritan's Dilemma (SD) if they are provided
478: the information on the corruption rate, $r$, of the source which
479: prepares in the initial product state $|0\rangle|0\rangle$.
480: \label{tab:prob2}}
481: \end{center}
482: \end{table}
483: \noindent
484: in the classical game payoff matrices. In this case, the players get equal payoffs $9/4$ and $3/4$ for PD and BoS, respectively. In SD,
485: the payoffs are $\$_{A}=1/4$ and $\$_{B}=3/2$.
486:
487: For PD, an interesting result is that there is no difference in
488: the payoffs between an ideal source, $r=0$, and a completely
489: corrupt source, $r=1$. That is, the players can resolve the
490: dilemma receiving the best possible payoffs, $\$_{A}=\$_{B}=3$, in
491: both cases. However, the strategies which lead to a unique NE in
492: these two extreme cases are different: When $r=0$, the
493: players can resolve the dilemma by applying
494: $\hat{U}_{A}=\hat{U}_{B}=i\hat{\sigma}_{z}$; however when $r=1$,
495: they have to change their actions to
496: $\hat{U}_{A}=\hat{U}_{B}=(\hat{\sigma}_{0}+i\hat{\sigma}_{z})/\sqrt{2}$
497: in order to resolve the dilemma.
498:
499: For BoS, while an NE is achieved resolving the dilemma with
500: $\$_{A}+\$_{B}=3$ for both $r=0$ and $r=1$, the corruption rate
501: shows its effect in the payoffs and the actions to reach NE's.
502: When $r=0$, the payoffs are $(\$_{A},\$_{B})=(1,2)$, on the other
503: hand when $r=1$, payoffs become $(\$_{A},\$_{B})=(2,1)$. As can be
504: seen in Table \ref{tab:prob3}, the difference in the strategies is
505: the choice of $\phi_{A}$ and $\phi_{B}$; while for $r=1$ the
506: players should choose $\phi_{A}=\phi_{B}=0$ to arrive at the NE,
507: for $r=0$ they have an infinite number of choices for $\phi_{A}$
508: and $\phi_{B}$ and any of these choices will work equally well.
509:
510: The effect of a corrupt source is much stronger
511: \begin{table}[h]
512: \begin{center}
513: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
514: \hline &$r$&$~~~~\hat{U}_{A}(\theta_{A},\phi_{A})~~~~$&$~~~~\hat{U}_{B}(\theta_{B},\phi_{B})~~~~$&$(\$_{A},\$_{B})$ \\
515: \hline
516: &$0$& $~~~~(\theta,\phi)$\footnotemark[1]&$(\theta,\frac{\pi}{2}-\phi)$\footnotemark[1]&$(1,2)$ \\
517: &$~$& $~~~~(\pi,\phi_{A})$\footnotemark[2]&$(\pi,\phi_{B})$\footnotemark[2]&$(1,2)$ \\
518: &$1/4$& $~~~~(\theta,\phi)$\footnotemark[1]&$(\theta,\frac{\pi}{2}-\phi)$\footnotemark[1]&$(\$_{A}^{'},\$_{B}^{'})$ \\
519: &$~$& $~~~~(\pi,\phi_{A})$\footnotemark[2]&$(\pi,\phi_{B})$\footnotemark[2]&$(\frac{11}{16},\frac{19}{16})$ \\
520: &$1/2$& $~~~~(\theta_{A},\phi_{A})$\footnotemark[2]\footnotemark[3]&$(\theta_{B},\phi_{B})$\footnotemark[2]\footnotemark[3]&$(\frac{3}{4},~\frac{3}{4})$ \\
521: &$3/4$&$~~~~(\pi,0)$&$(\pi,0)$&$(\frac{19}{16},\frac{11}{16})$ \\
522: &$1$& $~~~~(\pi,0)$&$(\pi,0)$&$(2,1)$ \\
523: \hline \end{tabular} \footnotetext[1]{~$\theta\in [\pi/2,\pi]$ and
524: $\phi\in [0,\pi/2]$}\footnotetext[2]{~$\forall \phi_{A},\forall
525: \phi_{B} \in [0,\pi/2]$}\footnotetext[3]{~$\forall
526: \theta_{A},\forall \theta_{B} \in [0,\pi]$}\caption{Strategies
527: which lead to NE's and the corresponding payoffs for the players
528: in BoS if they are provided the information on the corruption rate
529: of the source which prepares in the initial product state
530: $|0\rangle|0\rangle$. Note that one of the sets of strategies
531: leading to NE's when $r=1/4$ gives payoffs depending on $\theta$.
532: These payoffs are as follows: $\$_{A}'=(13-2\cos(2\theta))/16$ and
533: $\$_{B}'=(20-\cos(2\theta))/16$. \label{tab:prob3}}
534: \end{center}
535: \end{table}
536: \noindent for the SD game.
537: In this game, in contrast to the other two, although for $r=0$
538: there is a unique NE solving the dilemma, for $r=1$ the players
539: cannot find a unique NE. There emerges an infinite number of
540: different strategies with equal payoffs $(3,2)$. The players are
541: indifferent between these strategies and cannot make sharp
542: decisions. Therefore, the dilemma of the game survives, although
543: its nature changes.
544:
545: When we look at some intermediate values for the corruption rate,
546: we see that corruption rate affects BoS and SD strongly. For
547: example, when $r=3/4$ in SD, there are infinite number of strategies and NE's which have the
548: same payoffs $(21/16,15/8)$. These NE's are achieved when the
549: players choose their operators as $\theta_{A}=\theta_{B}=0$ and
550: $\phi_{B}=-\phi_{A}+\pi/2$. The same is seen in BoS for $r=1/4$
551: which results in a payoff $(15/16,21/16)$ when the players choose
552: $\theta_{A}=\theta_{B}=\pi/2$ and $\phi_{B}=-\phi_{A}+\pi/2$. A
553: more detailed analysis carried out for PD with increasing $r$ in
554: steps of $0.1$ in the range $[0,1]$ has revealed that the players
555: can achieve a unique NE where their payoffs and strategies depends
556: on the corruption rate. Therefore, information on the source
557: characteristic might help the players to reorganize their
558: strategies. However, whether providing the players with this kind
559: of information in a game is acceptable or not is an open
560: question.
561:
562: {\bf\textit{d. Conclusion:}} This study shows that the strategies
563: to achieve NE's and the corresponding payoffs are strongly
564: dependent on the corruption of the source. In a game with corrupt
565: source, the quantum advantage no longer survives if the corruption
566: rate is above a critical value. The corruption may not only cause
567: the emergence of multiple NE's but may cause a decrease in the
568: player's payoff, as well, even if there is a single NE. If the
569: players are given the characteristics of the source then they can
570: adapt their strategies; otherwise they can either continue their
571: best strategy assuming that the source is ideal and take the risk
572: of losing their quantum advantage over the classical or choose a
573: risk-free strategy, which makes their payoff independent of the
574: corruption rate. However, in the case where players know the
575: corruption rate and adjust their strategies, the problem is that
576: for some games there emerge multiple NE's, therefore the dilemmas
577: in those games survive. This study reveals the importance of the
578: source used in a quantum game.
579:
580:
581: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
582: \begin{acknowledgments}
583: The authors thank to Dr. J. Soderholm for the critical reading of
584: the manuscript. They also acknowledge the insightful discussions
585: with Dr. F. Morikoshi and Dr. T. Yamamoto.
586: \end{acknowledgments}
587: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
588: \section*{References}
589: \begin{thebibliography}{\mode}
590: \bibitem{Books} E. Rasmusen, {\it Games and Information: An Introduction to Game Theory} (Blackwell Pub, Oxford, 2001),
591: R. B. Myerson, {\it Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict} (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge MA, 1997).
592:
593: \bibitem{Books1} J. von Neumann, in {\it Collected Works Volume VI}, edited by A. H. Taub (Pergamon Press, 1963).
594:
595: \bibitem{Eisert1} J. Eisert, M. Wilkens, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 3077 (1999).
596:
597: \bibitem{Du} J. Du, X. Xu, H. Li, X. Zhou, and R. Han quant-ph/0010050 (2000).
598:
599: \bibitem{Eisert2} J. Eisert and M. Wilkens, J. Mod. Opt. {\bf 47}, 2543 (2000).
600:
601: \bibitem{Meyer} D. A. Meyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 1052
602: (1999).
603:
604: \bibitem{Du2} J. Du, H. Li, X. Xu, M. Shi, J. Wu, X. Zhou, and R. Han, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 137902 (2002).
605:
606: \bibitem{Johnson3} N. F. Johnson, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 63}, 020302 (2001).
607:
608: \bibitem{Ben} S. C. Benjamin and P. M. Hayden, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 64}, 030301 (2001).
609:
610: \bibitem{Flitney2} A. P. Flitney, J. Ng, and D. Abbott, Physica A {\bf 314}, 384 (2002).
611:
612: \bibitem{Iqbal} A. Iqbal and A. H. Toor, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 65}, 052328 (2002).
613:
614: \bibitem{Johnson1} C. F. Lee, N. F. Johnson, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 67}, 022311 (2003).
615:
616: \bibitem{Johnson2} C. F. Lee and N. F. Johnson, quant-ph/0207012.
617:
618: \bibitem{Ozdemir} \c{S}. K. \"Ozdemir, J. Shimamura, F. Morikoshi, and N. Imoto,
619: quant-ph/0311074.
620:
621: \bibitem{Text2a} The quantum strategy
622: $(\hat{\sigma}_{0}-i\hat{\sigma}_{y})/\sqrt{2}$ can vanish any
623: classical strategy of the other player provided that there is a
624: shared maximally entangled state.
625:
626: \bibitem{Note1} In BoS, if the source is ideal, that
627: is $r=0$, there are multiple NE's with the same payoff. (The
628: strategy set achieving the NE's are shown in Table
629: \ref{tab:prob3}.) However, the strategies with
630: $(\theta_{A}=\pi,\phi_{A})$ and $(\theta_{B}=\pi,\phi_{B})$, where
631: $\phi_{A}$ and $\phi_{B}$ are in the range $[0,\pi/2]$, is a focal
632: equilibrium point. This strategy set enables the players to
633: converge to the NE without a concern for the choice of $\phi_{A}$
634: and $\phi_{B}$.
635:
636: \end{thebibliography}
637: \end{document}
638: