Advertisement

Quantum Nash equilibrium in the thermodynamic limit

  • Shubhayan Sarkar
  • Colin BenjaminEmail author
Article

Abstract

The quantum Nash equilibrium in the thermodynamic limit is studied for games like quantum Prisoner’s dilemma and quantum game of Chicken. A phase transition is seen in both games as function of the entanglement in the game. We observe that for maximal entanglement irrespective of the classical payoffs, majority of players choose quantum strategy over defect in the thermodynamic limit.

Keywords

Quantum games Hawk–Dove game Nash equilibrium 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Grant “Non-local correlations in nanoscale systems: Role of decoherence, interactions, disorder and pairing symmetry” from SCIENCE & ENGINEERING RESEARCH BOARD, New Delhi, Government of India, Grant No. EMR/20l5/001836, Principal Investigator: Dr. Colin Benjamin, National Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhubaneswar, India. CB thanks Condensed matter and Statistical Physics section of the Abdus Salam ICTP, Trieste, Italy, for funding a research visit during which a part of this work was completed.

Author Contributions

CB conceived the proposal, SS did the calculations on the advice of CB. CB and SS analyzed the results and wrote the paper. Both authors reviewed the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no potential financial or non-financial conflicts of interest.

Data availability statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Grabbe, J.O.: An Introduction to Quantum Game Theory. arXiv:quant-ph/0506219
  2. 2.
    Adami, C., Hintze, A.: Thermodynamics of Evolutionary Games. arXiv:1706.03058v1 (2017)
  3. 3.
    Sarkar, S., Benjamin, C.: Emergence of Cooperation in the thermodynamic limit. arXiv:1803.10083 (2018)
  4. 4.
    Sarkar, S., Benjamin, C.: Triggers for cooperative behavior in the thermodynamic limit: a case study in Public goods game. arXiv:1804.06465 (2018)
  5. 5.
    Galam, S., Walliser, B.: Ising model versus normal form game. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 389, 3 (2010)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eisert, J., Wilkens, M., Lewenstein, M.: Quantum games and quantum strategies. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3077 (1999)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Salonen, H.: On the existence of Nash equilibria in large games. Int. J. Game Theory 39, 351 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schecter, S., Gintis, H.: Game Theory in Action: An Introduction to Classical and Evolutionary Models. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khan, F.S., et al.: Quantum games: a review of the history, current state, and interpretation. Quantum Inf. Process. 17, 309 (2018)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Physical SciencesNational Institute of Science Education and Research, HBNIJatniIndia

Personalised recommendations