We study the scenario where the players of a classical complete information game initially share an entangled pure quantum state. Each player may perform arbitrary local operations on his own qubits, but no direct communication is allowed. In this framework, we define the concept of quantum correlated equilibrium (QCE) for both normal and extensive form games of complete information. We show that in a normal form game, any outcome distribution implementable by a QCE can also be implemented by a classical correlated equilibrium (CE). We prove that the converse is surprisingly false: we give an example of an outcome distribution of a normal form game which is implementably by a CE, yet we prove that in any attempted quantum protocol beginning with a partition of a pure quantum state, at least one of the players will have incentive to deviate. We extend our analysis to extensive form games, and find that the relation between classical and quantum correlated equilibria becomes less clear. We compare the outcome distributions implementable in our quantum model to those implementable by a classical extensive form correlated equilibrium (EFCE). For example, we show that there exists an extensive form complete information game and a distribution of outcomes which can be implemented by a QCE but not by any EFCE, in contrast to the result for normal form games. We also consider the concept of an immediate-revelation extensive form correlated equilibrium (IR-EFCE) and compare the power of IR-EFCE to EFCE and to QCE.
We propose a simple yet rich model to extend strategic games to the quantum setting, in which we define quantum Nash and correlated equilibria and study the relations between classical and quantum equilibria. Unlike all previous work that focused on qualitative questions on specific games of very small sizes, we quantitatively address the following fundamental question for general games of growing sizes: How much "advantage" can playing quantum strategies provide, if any? Two measures of the advantage are studied. 1. Since game mainly is about each player trying to maximize individual payoff, a natural measure is the increase of payoff by playing quantum strategies. We consider natural mappings between classical and quantum states, and study how well those mappings preserve equilibrium properties. Among other results, we exhibit a correlated equilibrium p whose quantum superposition counterpart [EQUATION] is far from being a quantum correlated equilibrium; actually a player can increase her payoff from almost 0 to almost 1 in a [0, 1]-normalized game. We achieve this by a tensor product construction on carefully designed base cases. The result can also be interpreted as in Meyer's comparison [47]: In a state no classical player can gain, one player using quantum computers has an huge advantage than continuing to play classically. 2. Another measure is the hardness of generating correlated equilibria, for which we propose to study correlation complexity, a new complexity measure for correlation generation. We show that there are n-bit correlated equilibria which can be generated by only one EPR pair followed by local operation (without communication), but need at least log2(n) classical shared random bits plus communication. The randomized lower bound can be improved to n, the best possible, assuming (even a much weaker version of) a recent conjecture in linear algebra. We believe that the correlation complexity, as a complexity-theoretical counterpart of the celebrated Bell's inequality, has independent interest in both physics and computational complexity theory and deserves more explorations. Correlated equilibria are sometimes more efficient than the Nash equilibria of a game without signals. We investigate whether the availability of quantum signals in the context of a classical strategic game may allow the players to achieve even better efficiency than in any correlated equilibrium with classical signals, and find the answer to be positive.