Quantum Bayes Correlated Equilibrium and the Comparison of Quantum Information Structures in Games

Furkan Sezer

Quantum Bayes Correlated Equilibrium and the Comparison of Quantum Information Structures in Games

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs quantum Bayes correlated equilibrium, proves obedience is a Loewner operator inequality, and shows that under quantum individual sufficiency a more informative structure always induces a weakly smaller equilibrium…

desk verdict A rigorous, mostly complete quantum analogue of the Bergemann-Morris ordering; the math is sound, and the open converse is a scope limitation, not a flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04973 v1 pith:EVDIPYD3 submitted 2026-08-05 quant-ph econ.THmath.OC

Furkan Sezer This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phecon.THmath.OC MSC 81P4591A2791A8090C2294A15

keywords quantumBayescorrelatedequilibriuminformationstructuresgamesofincompleteLoewnerordersemidefiniteprogrammingindividualsufficiencycomparisonobedienceconstraints

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Games of incomplete information are governed by what the players learn; this paper claims that when the learning is quantum, the same logic as the classical Bayes correlated equilibrium theory works, with one change: obedience becomes an operator inequality instead of a scalar one. The paper builds a quantum information structure as a family of density operators indexed by the payoff state, lets an omniscient mediator split each state into action recommendations, and defines quantum Bayes correlated equilibrium by requiring that no player can gain from any measurement on their own subsystem. Its central theorems say that the equilibrium set is a nonempty convex spectrahedron computable by semidefinite programming, that classical information structures are recovered exactly, and that a more informative quantum structure always induces a weakly smaller equilibrium set in every basic game. A reader should care because this turns a comparison of information structures into a computable incentive question and shows that the classical comparison extends to quantum information without generating spurious outcomes.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the obedience operator $$$X_i^{{a_i,b_i}}$ = \sum_{\omega,a_{-i}} \psi(\omega) u_i(b_i,a_{-i},\omega)\,\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}\!\left[\rho_\$omega^{{(a_i,a_{-i}}$)}\right],$$ with Theorem 6.2 saying that the rule $\{\rho_\omega^a\}$ is a quantum Bayes correlated equilibrium iff $X_i^{a_i,a_i} - X_i^{a_i,b_i} \succeq 0$ for all $i,a_i,b_i$ in the Loewner order. This replaces the continuum of POVMs in the obedience definition with finitely many linear matrix inequalities, and it is the source of the spectrahedron structure and semidefinite-programming computability. The comparison result is carried by positive trace-preserving maps $T_\omega$ between full ensembles and one $\omega$-independent positive map $\Phi_i$ per player satisfying the identity $\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[T_\omega(\xi)] = \Phi_i(\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[\xi])$ for $\xi$ supported on $\operatorname{supp} \rho_\omega$; positivity is exactly what transports the Loewner inequalities from the finer to the coarser structure.

What would settle it

Search numerically over two-player, two-state, two-action games with random qubit structures $Q,Q'$ and explicitly chosen maps $T_\omega,\Phi_i$ satisfying Definition 9.2; if any such pair has an outcome in $\operatorname{QBCE}(G,Q)$ that is not in $\operatorname{QBCE}(G,Q')$, then Theorem 9.4 is false. The same search can also test the weaker form of $T_\omega$ positivity on the interval $[0,\rho_\omega]$, which the paper claims suffices; a failure there would localize the problem in the transfer step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper's central claim is that a quantum version of Bayes correlated equilibrium is well-defined and behaves like the classical object. A quantum information structure is a family of density operators $\rho_\omega$, one per payoff state, and a mediator decision rule is a splitting $\rho_\omega = \sum_a \rho_\omega^a$ into positive operators indexed by action profiles. The paper proves that obedience to the mediator's recommendation against arbitrary POVM deviations is equivalent to the Loewner domination $X_i^{a_i,a_i} \succeq X_i^{a_i,b_i}$ for every player and every alternative action, where the Hermitian operators $X_i^{a_i,b_i}$ are built from partial traces of the decision rule weighted by payoffs. From this single inequality the equilibrium set becomes a nonempty compact spectrahedron; classical structures embed exactly; the advice model is degenerate; and quantum individual sufficiency, defined through $\omega$-dependent positive trace-preserving maps plus $\omega$-independent local positive maps satisfying a partial-trace compatibility identity, implies inclusion of equilibrium sets in every game.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every family of positive operators summing to the state operator is a legitimate mediator decision rule, even though the paper itself shows such a rule need not correspond to a physically realizable quantum operation on the players' systems; without that freedom the soundness transfer from one structure to another would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If $Q \succeq_{QIS} Q'$, then $\operatorname{QBCE}(G,Q) \subseteq \operatorname{QBCE}(G,Q')$ for every basic game and every number of players, so more quantum information never enlarges the set of equilibrium outcomes.
Computing equilibrium outcomes, membership, and optimal welfare under a linear objective is a semidefinite program, so information design in this setting inherits the full algorithmic toolbox of SDP.
Classical signals embed exactly: $\operatorname{QBCE}(G,\iota(S)) = \operatorname{BCE}(G,S)$, meaning the quantum extension produces no new equilibrium outcomes when the information structure is purely classical.
The model in which players only receive classical advice extracted from their quantum systems is degenerate: its equilibrium set is the null-structure Bayes correlated equilibrium set and does not depend on the quantum structure at all.
For a single decision-maker, the maximum equilibrium payoff equals the full-information optimum for every structure; additional information never improves the best outcome, it only deletes outcomes elsewhere.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper does not draw out the following consequence: if mediator realizability were later required to be a physically implementable quantum instrument, the soundness transfer in Theorem 9.4 would likely collapse, because its proof uses splittings that no physical operation can realize.
The same state-correlated mediator construction suggests a neighbouring problem: extending this comparison to games with continuous action spaces or infinite-dimensional systems, where the Loewner characterization may require spectral side conditions beyond compactness.
A testable extension is to compare the QBCE welfare frontier against classical BCE welfare for the same basic game and the same classical signal accuracy; the paper's worked depolarizing chain already exhibits monotone decline, and systematic comparison would show when quantum coherence genuinely changes the set of robust predictions.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read it. This is the first quantum analogue of the Bergemann-Morris ordering that actually works, and the paper earns its claims. The core construction - QBCE with a Loewner characterization of obedience - is genuinely new, and the proofs hold up on inspection. I checked the main threads: Theorem 6.2 (POVM quantification reduces to finitely many Loewner inequalities), Theorem 7.1 (exact classical embedding via pinching), Theorem 8.3 (canonical expansion realizes every QBCE rule as a truthful QBNE), and Theorem 9.4 (soundness of the comparison order). The arguments are complete and internally consistent.

The literature division in Section 2 is sharp: it correctly identifies that the belief-invariant convention in quantum game theory forecloses the comparison question, and the embedding theorem shows the quantum theory is a conservative extension of BM. The transposition result (Theorem 9.1) is a genuinely nice insight, and the decision to use positive maps rather than channels is well-justified.

The main caveat is scope rather than correctness. The converse of the comparison theorem is proved only for simultaneously diagonalizable structures and for comparisons with the null structure; the general converse is open. The paper is explicit about this, but it means the "quantum analogue" is not yet a full equivalence theorem. Two minor issues: the abstract calls the equilibrium set a spectrahedron, while the paper proves it is a projected spectrahedron (the outcome set is a linear image of a spectrahedron of decision rules). And the numerical example reports SDP values without shipping code or data - reproducible in principle, but not in practice from the text alone.

The load-bearing modeling assumption - that any POVM decomposition is a valid decision rule - is exactly what the paper claims it is. The expansion theorem (8.3) gives it a clean foundation: the mediator is not a physical operation on the players' systems, but the equilibria are realized as ordinary state-preparation protocols conditional on omega in the canonical expansion. The stress-test note is right that this is the quantum mirror of the omniscient classical mediator, and it is not an internal inconsistency. It does mean QBCE is an incentive concept, not a feasibility concept, which is the right scope for a comparison theorem.

This deserves a serious referee and will likely be accepted after minor revision. I would cite it in my own work on quantum information economics.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a quantum generalization of Bergemann and Morris's Bayes correlated equilibrium. A quantum information structure is a state-dependent ensemble {ρ_ω} with one subsystem per player; a decision rule splits each ρ_ω into positive operators indexed by action profiles, and obedience requires each player's recommended action to be optimal against arbitrary POVM deviations on their subsystem. The paper proves that obedience is equivalent to Loewner domination of obedience operators (Theorem 6.2), making the set of equilibrium decision rules a spectrahedron and the outcome set a projected spectrahedron (Corollary 6.3), with nonemptiness by state-wise Nash play (Proposition 6.4). It then proves exact classical recovery (Theorem 7.1), the degeneracy of an advice model (Theorem 7.2), an incentive-triviality criterion in terms of local flatness (Theorem 7.4), a quantum analogue of the classical expansion theorem (Theorem 8.3), and a comparison order, quantum individual sufficiency, defined through positive trace-preserving maps (Definition 9.2). The main soundness result (Theorem 9.4) states that quantum individual sufficiency implies inclusion of equilibrium outcome sets in every basic game; converses are proved for simultaneously diagonalizable structures (Theorem 9.10) and for comparisons with the null structure (Theorem 9.11). The paper closes with a depolarizing-chain example computed by semidefinite programming.

Significance. This is a substantial and carefully executed contribution. I checked the central proofs and found them correct: Theorem 6.2's two-directional POVM argument is valid; Theorem 7.1's pinching reduction is sound; Theorem 8.3's expansion argument and Lemma 8.2's block-diagonal reduction are rigorous; Theorem 9.4 transfers obedience through positive maps exactly as claimed; Theorems 9.10 and 9.11 reduce to the classical Bergemann--Morris theorem where applicable. The paper is a conservative extension of the classical BCE theory in the precise sense of Theorem 7.1, and the comparison order is inhabited by local garblings, shared-randomness, and shared-entanglement garblings (Proposition 9.6). I particularly value the transparent treatment of the omniscient mediator: Lemma 5.2 makes realizability free, and Theorem 8.3 justifies this by realizing every QBCE decision rule as a quantum Bayes Nash equilibrium of a canonical expansion, while Proposition 8.5 honestly records that the mediator is not an instrument on the players' systems. The limitation that the converse of Theorem 9.4 is established only for two classes of structures is stated explicitly.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Section 1.2] The outcome set QBCE(G,Q) is described as a "spectrahedron"; Corollary 6.3 establishes only that the set of decision rules is a spectrahedron and that the outcome set is its linear image, i.e. a projected spectrahedron. Please correct the wording in the abstract and in Section 1.2.
[Definition 5.4] The sentence "A quantum decision rule X_i^{a_i,b_i} is a quantum Bayes correlated equilibrium" misstates the object: the object whose equilibrium status is being defined is the family {ρ^a_ω}, not an individual obedience operator. Please fix this wording.
[Section 2.2, contribution (1)] The text contains the typo "an decomposition"; it should read "a decomposition."
[Section 10] The numerical results in Figure 1 are reported without code or a reproducibility statement. Since the paper's analytic claims do not depend on these values, this is a presentation matter, but a code/data supplement would be helpful.
[Example 7.3] The expression for the deviation gain is printed as "q(a)/2 √2"; if the intended value is q(a)/(2√2), please parenthesize the denominator to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the quantum comparison theorem is derived from an independently stated sufficiency definition and checked against external classical benchmarks.

full rationale

No significant circularity identified. The central derivation is self-contained: Theorem 6.2 derives the Loewner characterization from Definition 5.4 using a constructive POVM argument; Theorem 7.1 proves exact classical recovery by a two-step pinching argument rather than assuming it; and Theorem 9.4 proves the comparison theorem from Definition 9.2 using positivity and trace preservation, with Definition 9.2 stated independently of equilibrium sets. The unconstrained realizability premise (Lemma 5.2) is load-bearing but is justified internally by the proportional rule and by the canonical expansion theorem (Theorem 8.3), not by circular citation or by fitting. No author self-citations appear; the only imported results are the external classical Bergemann-Morris theorems and Buscemi's single-agent order, which are used as benchmarks and checked against the quantum framework. The paper explicitly limits its completeness results to two classes of structures, which is a scope caveat rather than a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The theory introduces no fitted constants; the numerical example reuses Bergemann-Morris parameters. All theorems are derived from the definitions with standard operator-theoretic tools. The only genuinely postulated object is the omniscient mediator with unconstrained realizability, whose standing is secured internally by the expansion theorem, not by external evidence.

assumptions (5)

standard math Nash's theorem: every finite normal-form game has a mixed strategy Nash equilibrium
Imported in Proposition 6.4 to construct a state-wise Nash equilibrium ς_ω for each payoff state, giving a nonempty QBCE set.
domain assumption Bergemann-Morris Theorem 3.6 (classical comparison theorem): S ⪰ S' iff BCE(G,S) ⊆ BCE(G,S') for all basic games G
External benchmark and engine of Theorem 9.10, which reduces the quantum completeness result for simultaneously diagonalizable structures to the classical theorem via the exact embedding.
domain assumption Bergemann-Morris Theorem 3.4: BCE decision rules are exactly the Bayes Nash equilibria of expansions
Classical analogue whose proof structure (Section 8) is quantized; referenced to justify the expansion characterization of QBCE.
domain assumption Buscemi's quantum Blackwell comparison of quantum statistical models via channels
Single-agent boundary condition in Corollary 9.8(ii); used to show consistency with the known single-player quantum order.
standard math Standard facts about completely positive maps (Choi operator of the transpose is the swap, with a negative eigenvalue)
Used in Theorem 9.1(ii) to show no channel maps an ensemble to its transpose, forcing the comparison order to use positive maps.

invented entities (1)

Omniscient quantum mediator (state-correlated splitting device)
purpose: Splits each state-conditional density operator ρ_ω into positive operators ρ^a_ω indexed by action recommendation profiles, conditioning on the payoff state; the quantum analogue of the BM mediator.
Modeling construct rather than a physical device; Proposition 8.5 proves it cannot be realized as a quantum instrument. Its behavioral content is justified internally by Theorem 8.3, which realizes every QBCE as the quantum Bayes Nash equilibrium of a physically preparable canonical expansion.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Bayes Correlated Equilibrium and the Comparison of Quantum Information Structures in Games." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EVDIPYD3

@misc{pith2026260804973,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Bayes Correlated Equilibrium and the Comparison of Quantum Information Structures in Games},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EVDIPYD3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04973}
}

read the original abstract

Bergemann and Morris (2016) show that one information structure is more informative than another exactly when it induces a smaller set of Bayes correlated equilibrium outcomes in every game. We build the quantum analogue. An information structure becomes a family of density operators indexed by the payoff state, which the mediator observes. We show that obedience is equivalent to a Loewner domination between operators on one player's subsystem. The equilibrium set is then a nonempty compact spectrahedron computable by semidefinite programming, classical structures embed exactly, and under quantum individual sufficiency more information shrinks the equilibrium set in every game.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04973 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Maximum average welfare per player over QBCE(G, Qγ) along the depolarizing chain of Proposition 10.1, each marker being the optimal value of a semidefinite program. Informativeness increases with γ, so the structures are ordered from least informative on the left to most informative on the right. The value is non-increasing, as Theorem 9.4 requires: more information admits fewer equilibrium outcomes and hence a lo… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

Abbott, Mehdi Mhalla, and Pierre Pocreau

Alastair A. Abbott, Mehdi Mhalla, and Pierre Pocreau. Improving social welfare in non-cooperative games with different types of quantum resources.Quantum, 8:1376, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Belief-invariant and quantum equilibria in games of incomplete information.Theoretical Computer Science, 895:151–177, 2021

Vincenzo Auletta, Diodato Ferraioli, Ashutosh Rai, Giannicola Scarpa, and Andreas Winter. Belief-invariant and quantum equilibria in games of incomplete information.Theoretical Computer Science, 895:151–177, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Robert J. Aumann. Correlated equilibrium as an expression of Bayesian rationality.Econometrica, 55(1):1–18, 1987

work page 1987
[4]

Bayes correlated equilibrium and the comparison of information structures in games.Theoretical Economics, 11(2):487–522, 2016

Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris. Bayes correlated equilibrium and the comparison of information structures in games.Theoretical Economics, 11(2):487–522, 2016

work page 2016
[5]

Information design, Bayesian persuasion, and Bayes correlated equilibrium

Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris. Information design, Bayesian persuasion, and Bayes correlated equilibrium. American Economic Review, 106(5):586–591, 2016

work page 2016
[6]

Information design: a unified perspective.Journal of Economic Literature, 57(1):44–95, 2019

Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris. Information design: a unified perspective.Journal of Economic Literature, 57(1):44–95, 2019

work page 2019
[7]

Equivalent comparisons of experiments.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 24(2):265–272, 1953

David Blackwell. Equivalent comparisons of experiments.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 24(2):265–272, 1953

work page 1953
[8]

Team decision problems with classical and quantum signals

Adam Brandenburger and Pierfrancesco La Mura. Team decision problems with classical and quantum signals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 374(2058):20150096, 2016

work page 2016

Show all 35 references

[9]

Connection between Bell nonlocality and Bayesian game theory.Nature Communications, 4:2057, 2013

Nicolas Brunner and Noah Linden. Connection between Bell nonlocality and Bayesian game theory.Nature Communications, 4:2057, 2013. 24 FURKAN SEZER*

2013
[10]

Comparison of quantum statistical models: equivalent conditions for sufficiency.Communi- cations in Mathematical Physics, 310(3):625–647, 2012

Francesco Buscemi. Comparison of quantum statistical models: equivalent conditions for sufficiency.Communi- cations in Mathematical Physics, 310(3):625–647, 2012

2012
[11]

Bayesian nash equilibria and bell inequalities.Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 77(2):024801, 2008

Taksu Cheon and Azhar Iqbal. Bayesian nash equilibria and bell inequalities.Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 77(2):024801, 2008

2008
[12]

Quantum games and quantum strategies.Physical Review Letters, 83(15):3077–3080, 1999

Jens Eisert, Martin Wilkens, and Maciej Lewenstein. Quantum games and quantum strategies.Physical Review Letters, 83(15):3077–3080, 1999

1999
[13]

Joint distributions, quantum correlations, and commuting observables.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 23(7):1306–1310, 1982

Arthur Fine. Joint distributions, quantum correlations, and commuting observables.Journal of Mathematical Physics, 23(7):1306–1310, 1982

1982
[14]

Five legitimate definitions of correlated equilibrium in games with incomplete information

Fran¸ coise Forges. Five legitimate definitions of correlated equilibrium in games with incomplete information. Theory and Decision, 35(3):277–310, 1993

1993
[15]

Correlated equilibrium in games with incomplete information revisited.Theory and Decision, 61(4):329–344, 2006

Fran¸ coise Forges. Correlated equilibrium in games with incomplete information revisited.Theory and Decision, 61(4):329–344, 2006

2006
[16]

Comparison of information structures.Games and Economic Behavior, 30(1):44–63, 2000

Olivier Gossner. Comparison of information structures.Games and Economic Behavior, 30(1):44–63, 2000

2000
[17]

How quantum information can improve social welfare.IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory, 1(2):445–453, 2020

Berry Groisman, Michael Mc Gettrick, Mehdi Mhalla, and Marcin Paw lowski. How quantum information can improve social welfare.IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory, 1(2):445–453, 2020

2020
[18]

Helstrom.Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory

Carl W. Helstrom.Quantum Detection and Estimation Theory. Academic Press, New York, 1976

1976
[19]

Alexander S. Holevo. Statistical decision theory for quantum systems.Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 3(4):337– 394, 1973

1973
[20]

Bayesian persuasion.American Economic Review, 101(6):2590–2615, 2011

Emir Kamenica and Matthew Gentzkow. Bayesian persuasion.American Economic Review, 101(6):2590–2615, 2011

2011
[21]

Faisal Shah Khan, Neal Solmeyer, Radhakrishnan Balu, and Travis S. Humble. Quantum games: a review of the history, current state, and interpretation.Quantum Information Processing, 17(11):309, 2018

2018
[22]

Correlated equilibria of classical strategic games with quantum signals.International Journal of Quantum Information, 3(1):183–188, 2005

Pierfrancesco La Mura. Correlated equilibria of classical strategic games with quantum signals.International Journal of Quantum Information, 3(1):183–188, 2005

2005
[23]

Signaling and mediation in games with common interests

Ehud Lehrer, Dinah Rosenberg, and Eran Shmaya. Signaling and mediation in games with common interests. Games and Economic Behavior, 68(2):670–682, 2010

2010
[24]

Garbling of signals and outcome equivalence.Games and Economic Behavior, 81:179–191, 2013

Ehud Lehrer, Dinah Rosenberg, and Eran Shmaya. Garbling of signals and outcome equivalence.Games and Economic Behavior, 81:179–191, 2013

2013
[25]

Correlation and common priors in games with incomplete information.Journal of Economic Theory, 157:49–75, 2015

Qingmin Liu. Correlation and common priors in games with incomplete information.Journal of Economic Theory, 157:49–75, 2015

2015
[26]

A quantum approach to static games of complete information.Physics Letters A, 272(5-6):291–303, 2000

Luca Marinatto and Tullio Weber. A quantum approach to static games of complete information.Physics Letters A, 272(5-6):291–303, 2000

2000
[27]

David A. Meyer. Quantum strategies.Physical Review Letters, 82(5):1052–1055, 1999

1999
[28]

Nonlocality and conflicting interest games.Physical Review Letters, 114(2):020401, 2015

Anna Pappa, Niraj Kumar, Thomas Lawson, Miklos Santha, Shengyu Zhang, Eleni Diamanti, and Iordanis Kerenidis. Nonlocality and conflicting interest games.Physical Review Letters, 114(2):020401, 2015

2015
[29]

Sufficient subalgebras and the relative entropy of states of a von Neumann algebra.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 105(1):123–131, 1986

D´ enes Petz. Sufficient subalgebras and the relative entropy of states of a von Neumann algebra.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 105(1):123–131, 1986

1986
[30]

Strong quantum solutions in conflicting-interest Bayesian games.Physical Review A, 96(4):042340, 2017

Ashutosh Rai and Goutam Paul. Strong quantum solutions in conflicting-interest Bayesian games.Physical Review A, 96(4):042340, 2017

2017
[31]

Comparison of information structures and completely positive maps.Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General, 38(44):9717–9727, 2005

Eran Shmaya. Comparison of information structures and completely positive maps.Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General, 38(44):9717–9727, 2005

2005
[32]

van Enk and Robert Pike

Steven J. van Enk and Robert Pike. Classical rules in quantum games.Physical Review A, 66(2):024306, 2002

2002
[33]

Xin Wang and Mark M. Wilde. Resource theory of asymmetric distinguishability.Physical Review Research, 1(3):033170, 2019

2019
[34]

Yuen, Robert S

Horace P. Yuen, Robert S. Kennedy, and Melvin Lax. Optimum testing of multiple hypotheses in quantum detection theory.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 21(2):125–134, 1975

1975
[35]

Quantum strategic game theory

Shengyu Zhang. Quantum strategic game theory. InProceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS ’12, page 39–59, New York, NY, USA, 2012. Association for Computing Machinery

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Abbott, Mehdi Mhalla, and Pierre Pocreau

Alastair A. Abbott, Mehdi Mhalla, and Pierre Pocreau. Improving social welfare in non-cooperative games with different types of quantum resources.Quantum, 8:1376, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Belief-invariant and quantum equilibria in games of incomplete information.Theoretical Computer Science, 895:151–177, 2021

Vincenzo Auletta, Diodato Ferraioli, Ashutosh Rai, Giannicola Scarpa, and Andreas Winter. Belief-invariant and quantum equilibria in games of incomplete information.Theoretical Computer Science, 895:151–177, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Robert J. Aumann. Correlated equilibrium as an expression of Bayesian rationality.Econometrica, 55(1):1–18, 1987

work page 1987

[4] [4]

Bayes correlated equilibrium and the comparison of information structures in games.Theoretical Economics, 11(2):487–522, 2016

Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris. Bayes correlated equilibrium and the comparison of information structures in games.Theoretical Economics, 11(2):487–522, 2016

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Information design, Bayesian persuasion, and Bayes correlated equilibrium

Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris. Information design, Bayesian persuasion, and Bayes correlated equilibrium. American Economic Review, 106(5):586–591, 2016

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Information design: a unified perspective.Journal of Economic Literature, 57(1):44–95, 2019

Dirk Bergemann and Stephen Morris. Information design: a unified perspective.Journal of Economic Literature, 57(1):44–95, 2019

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Equivalent comparisons of experiments.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 24(2):265–272, 1953

David Blackwell. Equivalent comparisons of experiments.The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 24(2):265–272, 1953

work page 1953

[8] [8]

Team decision problems with classical and quantum signals

Adam Brandenburger and Pierfrancesco La Mura. Team decision problems with classical and quantum signals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 374(2058):20150096, 2016

work page 2016