Quick Navigation

Topics

Open Quantum Systems Decoherence Quantum Simulation Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations

Risk-Dominant Equilibrium in Quantum Prisoner's Dilemma

arXiv
Authors: Ahmed S. Elgazzar

Year

2024

Paper ID

66215

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

90

Citations

N/A

Abstract

The choice of a unique Nash equilibrium (NE) is crucial in theoretical classical and quantum games. The Eiswer-Wilkens-Lewenstein quantization scheme solves the prisoner's dilemma only for high entanglement. At medium entanglement, there are multiple NEs. We investigate the selection of a unique NE in the quantum prisoner's dilemma with variable dilemma strength parameters. The risk-dominance criterion is used. The influence of the dilemma strength parameters and entanglement is emphasized. We found that entanglement completely controls the risk-dominant equilibrium. Entanglement promotes quantum-cooperation in the risk-dominant equilibrium and thus improves its outcome.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2024 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • The choice of a unique Nash equilibrium (NE) is crucial in theoretical classical and quantum games.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #66215 #69978 Distribution Complexity of Elec... #69974 Hierarchical separation of rela... #69964 Bounded-depth spacetime lattice... #69945 Phase Stable Integrated Delay L...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.