Entanglement and coherence in quantum prisoner's dilemma

Entanglement and coherence are quantum resources widely used in several tasks in quantum information processing. In particular, the emergence of quantum game theory arises the question whether entanglement would be more useful than coherence for quantum players. In this paper, we address such question from a two-person quantum game, namely the quantum version of the prisoner’s dilemma. We discuss the players payoffs (i) when an entangled initial game state is provided and (ii) when the system is started in a separable superposition state. As the main result, when an entangled state is provided to players, we find a situation where a non-maximally entangled state is preferable by a quantum player concerning the maximally entangled state. Thus, our first result suggests that we can establish a trade-off between maximum expected payoff and an amount of entanglement required by a quantum player. As a second result, when we provide a non-entangled initial state (but we have coherence), the payoff of a classical player is enhanced concerning the previous case. We discuss how the phase-transition-like behavior emerges from entanglement in the game considered here, so that we could design a game where no change in optimal strategies would be required.

[1]  Hui Li,et al.  Phase-transition-like behaviour of quantum games , 2001 .

[2]  Xiongfeng Ma,et al.  Intrinsic randomness as a measure of quantum coherence , 2015, 1505.04032.

[3]  M. Plenio Logarithmic negativity: a full entanglement monotone that is not convex. , 2005, Physical review letters.

[4]  M. Ramzan,et al.  Distinguishing quantum channels via magic squares game , 2010, Quantum Inf. Process..

[5]  A. C. Maioli,et al.  Quantization and experimental realization of the Colonel Blotto game , 2018, Quantum Inf. Process..

[6]  A. Winter,et al.  Operational Resource Theory of Coherence. , 2015, Physical review letters.

[7]  Gerardo Adesso,et al.  Measuring Quantum Coherence with Entanglement. , 2015, Physical review letters.

[8]  R. Vilela Mendes,et al.  The Quantum Ultimatum Game , 2005, Quantum Inf. Process..

[9]  Colin Benjamin,et al.  Do quantum strategies always win? , 2015, Quantum Inf. Process..

[10]  Hui Li,et al.  Entanglement enhanced multiplayer quantum games , 2002 .

[11]  Simon C. Benjamin,et al.  Multiplayer quantum games , 2001 .

[12]  D. Meyer Quantum strategies , 1998, quant-ph/9804010.

[13]  M. Plenio,et al.  Quantifying coherence. , 2013, Physical review letters.

[14]  Hui Li,et al.  PLAYING PRISONER'S DILEMMA WITH QUANTUM RULES , 2002 .

[15]  K. Audenaert,et al.  Entanglement cost under positive-partial-transpose-preserving operations. , 2003, Physical review letters.

[16]  R. Spekkens,et al.  Measuring the quality of a quantum reference frame: The relative entropy of frameness , 2009, 0901.0943.

[17]  Travis S. Humble,et al.  Quantum games: a review of the history, current state, and interpretation , 2018, Quantum Information Processing.

[18]  Isaac L. Chuang,et al.  Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (10th Anniversary edition) , 2011 .

[19]  Heng Fan,et al.  Fidelity and trace-norm distances for quantifying coherence , 2014, 1410.8327.

[20]  J. Eisert,et al.  Quantum Games and Quantum Strategies , 1998, quant-ph/9806088.

[21]  Lian Shi,et al.  Nonlinear dynamics of a quantum Cournot duopoly game with heterogeneous players , 2019, Quantum Inf. Process..

[22]  Alan C. Santos,et al.  Adiabatic quantum games and phase-transition-like behavior between optimal strategies , 2018, Quantum Inf. Process..

[23]  S. Balakrishnan,et al.  Classical rules and quantum strategies in penny flip game , 2013, Quantum Inf. Process..

[24]  M. Plenio,et al.  Colloquium: quantum coherence as a resource , 2016, 1609.02439.