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

Furkan Sezer

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.

Key words and phrases:

Quantum Bayes correlated equilibrium, Quantum game theory, Quantum information structures, Games of incomplete information, Semidefinite programming

2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:

Primary 81P45, 91A27; Secondary 91A80, 90C22, 94A15

*Texas A&M University, email: furkan.sezer@tamu.edu.

1. Introduction

A game of incomplete information decomposes into a basic game, comprising the actions, the payoffs and a prior over payoff states, and an information structure describing what each player learns before taking an action. Bergemann and Morris [5] (BM) identify the order on information structures that governs equilibrium behaviour in such games. One structure is individually sufficient for another when, in some combined structure, each player’s signal under the first is a sufficient statistic for the state and for the other players’ signals under the second. Their theorem is that this statistical relation holds precisely when the first structure is more incentive constrained than the second, meaning that it induces a subset of Bayes correlated equilibrium (BCE) outcomes in every basic game. With a single player the order collapses to Blackwell’s [8]. With several it is strictly coarser, because what is being compared is no longer the value of information to a decision maker but the tightness of the obedience constraints that information imposes on a mediator.

The result matters because it converts a question about behaviour into a question about statistics. Bayes correlated equilibrium characterizes what can occur when players observe at least a given information structure and possibly more [5, Thm. 1], so properties shared by all such equilibria are robust predictions, valid whatever additional information the analyst has failed to model. The ordering then says exactly when one modelling assumption is more permissive than another, and it is the engine behind the information-design program built on it [6, 7, 20].

This paper develops the quantum analogue: quantum Bayes correlated equilibrium (QBCE). The motivating situation is one in which the players’ private information is carried by quantum systems: each agent holds a subsystem of a joint state whose preparation depends on an underlying payoff-relevant parameter, and each may perform any measurement on their own share before acting. Such descriptions arise naturally for agents distributed across a quantum network, for sensing platforms in which measurement choices are strategic, and more generally wherever the information available to a decision maker is a quantum state rather than a classical signal. The single-player instance of the comparison problem is settled: Buscemi’s comparison of quantum statistical models [11] extends the Blackwell–Sherman–Stein theorem to families of density operators, with the physically implementable transformations of quantum states in place of the classical garblings, and related formulations appear in Shmaya [31], Petz [29] and the resource theory of asymmetric distinguishability [33]. The multi-player, obedience-constrained order is the object we construct here.

1.1. Why the existing quantum literature does not already answer this

There is a substantial body of work on quantum equilibria, and it divides in a way that matters here. One line quantizes games of complete information: Meyer’s quantum strategies [27] and the protocols of Eisert–Wilkens–Lewenstein [12] and Marinatto–Weber [26] enlarge the strategy sets available in a fixed payoff matrix, and correlated equilibria with quantum signals [22] and quantum strategic games [35] study which correlations such enlargements sustain. In these settings there is no state of nature, hence no information structure, and the question of comparing information does not arise.

The second line treats games of incomplete information, where a payoff-relevant state exists and the players hold private data about it. It includes the belief-invariant hierarchy of Auletta–Ferraioli–Rai–Scarpa–Winter [3], welfare improvements from quantum resources [17, 2], and conflicting-interest Bayesian games [28, 30]. Here the comparison question is meaningful, and here a single convention is in force, which the survey of Khan et al. [21] states plainly: the players may share advice drawn before play, but that advice may not depend on the state of nature. The shared resource, whether a random variable or an entangled state, is prepared once and independently of the payoff-relevant parameter, so it can correlate the players’ actions with one another but cannot inform them about the parameter. Under that restriction the achievable correlations take the local-hidden-variable form from which Bell inequalities are derived, and quantum advantage in the setting is a Bell violation. Section 4.1 states the restriction formally: the joint conditional behaviour must factor through shared advice whose law is fixed independently of the state of nature.

Bayes correlated equilibrium removes exactly this restriction. The BM mediator is omniscient, in that a decision rule assigns action recommendations as a function of the players’ signals and of the state of nature itself, and [5, Sec. 1.2] is explicit that where the earlier correlated-equilibrium literature imposed join feasibility, under which play depends only on the players’ combined information, “our different motivation leads us to allow such unexplained correlation” with the state of nature. Two consequences follow. A quantum equilibrium notion built from measurements of an state-independent shared state is a belief-invariant object, not a BCE: it is a fixed-resource correlation concept rather than an information concept. In addition, any comparison-of-information program must work with ensembles of states that vary with the state of nature, together with a mediator that observes it. This is the setting we adopt, and it explains why the ordering question has remained invisible: the established convention forecloses it.

1.2. The framework and what it yields

We therefore take a quantum information structure to be a family of density operators indexed by the payoff state, one subsystem per player, and we let the mediator observe that state. A decision rule splits each density operator into one positive operator for every profile of action recommendations, the pieces summing to the original, so that the players’ subsystems are left intact while the recommendation may be correlated both with the payoff state and with the ensemble decomposition. Obedience requires the recommended action to be optimal against every alternative measurement a player might perform on their own subsystem. Realizability places no constraint at all: every joint distribution over states and actions with the correct marginal is induced by some decision rule, so the theory is about incentives and nothing else, exactly as in the classical case.

The technical engine of the paper is that this obedience condition has a closed operator form. For each player, recommendation and candidate deviation there is a Hermitian obedience operator on that player’s subsystem, and obedience holds precisely when the operator attached to the recommended action dominates, in the Loewner order, the operator attached to every alternative. A quantifier over a continuum of positive operator-valued measures is thereby replaced by finitely many operator inequalities, and the resulting object is the exact operator analogue of the coordinatewise comparison that defines classical obedience. Three consequences are immediate: the equilibrium set is a spectrahedron, hence convex and compact, so equilibrium computation and information design are semidefinite programming; the set is nonempty, since ignoring the quantum systems and playing a state-wise Nash equilibrium is always obedient; and classical information structures embed exactly, the quantum equilibrium set at an embedded classical structure coinciding with the classical Bayes correlated equilibrium set rather than merely containing it.

The comparison theorem follows the same route. We define quantum individual sufficiency by requiring a transfer of decision rules that may depend on the payoff state, together with a single local map per player that does not, mirroring the two operative features of the classical definition. The relation is a preorder, it contains local garblings, garblings assisted by shared randomness and garblings assisted by shared entanglement, and it restricts to Bergemann–Morris individual sufficiency on classical structures. Under it, more information shrinks the set of equilibrium outcomes in every basic game and for every number of players. We establish the converse in two regimes: for structures simultaneously diagonalizable in a product basis, where the classical theorem is recovered through the exactness of the embedding, and for every comparison involving the least informative structure, where the criterion is that each player’s local marginal be independent of the payoff state.

Two further results fix the position of the framework. The access model in which players receive only classical advice extracted from their quantum systems is degenerate: its equilibrium set does not depend on the quantum structure at all, so the comparative content of a quantum information structure resides entirely in the local quantum deviations it permits. Also, the solution concept has the same foundational justification as its classical counterpart, being identified with the quantum Bayes Nash equilibria of a canonical expansion under arbitrary local deviations.

1.3. Organization

Section 2 places the results against the literature and lists them. Section 3 fixes the classical apparatus. Sections 4 and 5 define quantum information structures and quantum Bayes correlated equilibrium. Section 6 proves the Loewner characterization and its immediate consequences. Section 7 establishes the exact recovery of the classical theory, the degeneracy of the advice model, and the criterion for a structure to carry no incentive content. Section 8 gives the expansion theorem, identifying the equilibria with the quantum Bayes Nash equilibria of a canonical expansion. Section 9 then defines quantum individual sufficiency and proves the comparison theorem, together with the two regimes in which its converse holds. Section 10 computes a welfare frontier along a chain of increasingly noisy quantum structures.

2. Related work and contributions

This work sits between two literatures that have developed largely independently: the study of quantum games, and the study of orderings on information structures in economics. We review them in five groups, in the order in which they bear on what follows. The first supplies the single-agent boundary condition that our results must reduce to. The second and third are the quantization protocols for complete-information games and the Bayesian quantum games built around Bell inequalities, which together account for the modelling convention identified in Section 1. The fourth contains the closest relatives in solution concept. The fifth is the classical theory whose ordering this paper quantizes.

2.1. Review of the related literature

Quantum single-agent sufficiency.

Buscemi [11] settles the quantum Blackwell order, using tests with a reference system; Shmaya [31], Petz [29] and the asymmetric-distinguishability resource theory [33] give adjacent formulations. These provide the single-agent boundary condition (Corollary 9.8), not a target. The older stratum of quantum statistical decision theory on which they rest is the theory of optimal measurement for discriminating a known family of states, due to Helstrom [18], Holevo [19] and Yuen, Kennedy and Lax [34]; the optimal discrimination bound quoted in Example 7.3 is theirs.

Quantization protocols and their critics.

Meyer [27], Eisert–Wilkens–Lewenstein [12] and Marinatto–Weber [26] supply the dominant protocols; van Enk and Pike [32] and the discussion in [21] question how much of the advantage is genuinely quantum. None of this work orders information structures.

Bayesian quantum games and Bell inequalities.

Brunner and Linden [10] connect nonlocality to Bayesian games through the local-hidden-variable form of shared advice; Cheon and Iqbal [1] and Fine [13] supply the factorizability apparatus; Pappa et al. [28] and Rai and Paul [30] treat conflicting-interest games. The standing assumption throughout is that advice is independent of the state of nature, which Definition 5.1 removes.

Quantum correlated and belief-invariant equilibria.

Auletta et al. [3] organize communication, belief-invariant and correlated equilibria for games of incomplete information; this is the closest relative in solution concept, but with a state-independent shared resource and no order on information structures. La Mura [22] and Brandenburger and La Mura [9] study correlated equilibria and team decisions with quantum signals; Zhang [35] develops quantum strategic game theory. Groisman et al. [17] and Abbott–Mhalla–Pocreau [2] study welfare under quantum resources, the latter distinguishing direct quantum access from classical advice. That distinction is mirrored here at the equilibrium level and shown degenerate in one direction (Theorem 7.2).

Classical information design and orderings.

The BCE apparatus is due to Bergemann and Morris [5, 6, 7], building on Aumann [4] and Forges [14, 15]. Adjacent orderings are studied by Gossner [16] for Bayes Nash equilibrium, Lehrer, Rosenberg and Shmaya [23, 24] for garbling and outcome equivalence, and Liu [25] for belief-invariant BCE; the one-player null-structure case is Kamenica and Gentzkow [20].

2.2. Summary of contributions

(1)

Definitions (Sections 4–5). A quantum information structure is a state-correlated ensemble; a quantum decision rule is an decomposition of each state-conditional density operator into one positive operator per profile of recommendations, the pieces summing to the original; QBCE requires obedience against arbitrary local positive operator-valued measure (POVM) deviations. Realizability is unconstrained (Lemma 5.2), so only incentives bind, exactly as for BCE.
(2)

The Loewner characterization (Theorem 6.2): obedience holds if and only if the obedience operator attached to the recommended action dominates, in the Loewner order, the operator attached to every alternative. This replaces a quantifier over a continuum of POVMs by finitely many operator inequalities and drives everything that follows.
(3)

Well-posedness: the equilibrium set is a nonempty, compact, convex projected spectrahedron and membership is a semidefinite program (Corollary 6.3, Proposition 6.4).
(4)

Exact classical recovery (Theorem 7.1): the quantum equilibrium set at an embedded classical structure coincides with the classical one. The coherent quantum mediator produces no outcomes beyond the classical ones on classical information.
(5)

Degeneracy of the advice model (Theorem 7.2) with an explicit separation (Example 7.3): under classical post-processing the equilibrium set does not depend on the quantum structure at all, so only the quantum-deviation model can support a comparison theorem.
(6)

The bottom of the order (Theorem 7.4): a structure is incentive-equivalent to the null structure exactly when every local marginal is independent of the state of nature, so all incentive content is carried by the way those marginals vary with it.
(7)

Foundations of the solution concept (Theorem 8.3, Corollary 8.4): QBCE decision rules are exactly the quantum Bayes Nash equilibria of a canonical expansion, under arbitrary local deviations. The mediator itself admits no representation as a quantum instrument (Proposition 8.5).
(8)

Why the relation uses positive maps (Theorem 9.1): an ensemble and its transposes are incentive-equivalent yet related by no channel, so the incentive ordering cannot be characterized by completely positive maps. Definition 9.2 is calibrated accordingly.
(9)

The comparison theorem, soundness half (Definition 9.2, Theorem 9.4): quantum individual sufficiency implies inclusion of the equilibrium sets, in every basic game and for every number of players. The relation is a preorder (Proposition 9.3), and local, shared-randomness and shared-entanglement garblings, as well as classical individual sufficiency, are instances (Propositions 9.6, 9.7).
(10)

Completeness (Theorems 9.10 and 9.11): the converse of Theorem 9.4 holds for structures simultaneously diagonalizable in product bases, and for every comparison involving the least informative structure.
(11)

A worked comparison (Section 10): along a depolarizing chain of quantum structures the QBCE welfare frontier is computed by semidefinite programming and falls monotonically with informativeness, the quantum form of the Bergemann–Morris comparative static.

3. Classical preliminaries

This section fixes the classical apparatus that the rest of the paper quantizes. Two results of Bergemann and Morris are recorded, and they play different roles. The first justifies the solution concept, characterizing Bayes correlated equilibrium as the behaviour consistent with players observing at least a given information structure and possibly more; it is the reason the concept is the right one to compare structures by. The second is the comparison theorem itself, equating a statistical ordering on information with an incentive ordering on behaviour. Sections 8 and 9 construct the quantum analogues in that order.

Fix a finite set $N=\{1,\dots,n\}$ of players, writing $n$ for their number, and a finite set $\Omega$ of states of nature $\omega$ . We define a basic game as follows:

Definition 3.1 (Basic game).

$G=(\Omega,(A_{i})_{i\in N},(u_{i})_{i\in N},\psi)$ with finite action sets $A_{i}$ , $A:=\prod_{i}A_{i}$ , payoffs $u_{i}:A\times\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ , and a full-support prior $\psi\in\Delta(\Omega)$ .

For a given a basic game $G$ , classical information structures are defined as follows:

Definition 3.2 (Classical information structure).

$S=((T_{i})_{i\in N},\pi)$ with finite signal sets $T_{i}$ , $T:=\prod_{i}T_{i}$ , and $\pi:\Omega\to\Delta(T)$ . The null structure $S_{\emptyset}$ has every $T_{i}$ a singleton.

A decision rule is $\sigma:T\times\Omega\to\Delta(A)$ ; its outcome is $\nu\in\Delta(\Omega\times A)$ with $\nu(\omega,a)=\psi(\omega)\sum_{t}\pi(t\mid\omega)\sigma(a\mid t,\omega)$ .

Definition 3.3 (Obedience and BCE, [5]).

$\sigma$ is obedient for $(G,S)$ if for each $i$ , $t_{i}\in T_{i}$ , $a_{i}\in A_{i}$ and $b_{i}\in A_{i}$ ,

\sum_{\omega,t_{-i},a_{-i}}\psi(\omega)\pi(t_{i},t_{-i}\mid\omega)\sigma(a_{i},a_{-i}\mid t,\omega)\big[u_{i}(a_{i},a_{-i},\omega)-u_{i}(b_{i},a_{-i},\omega)\big]\ \geq\ 0,

and is a Bayes correlated equilibrium if obedient. $\mathrm{BCE}(G,S)$ denotes the set of BCE outcomes.

Two features of Definition 3.3 carry the weight of the theory and are worth isolating, because the quantum framework preserves both.

The mediator is omniscient: the decision rule $\sigma(a\mid t,\omega)$ conditions on the state of nature, not only on the players’ signals. Much of the earlier literature on correlated equilibrium with incomplete information instead imposes join feasibility, requiring $\sigma(a\mid t,\omega)$ to be independent of $\omega$ , so that the mediator knows no more than the players collectively do [14, 15]. A second common restriction is belief invariance, requiring that a player’s recommendation not alter their beliefs about the state and the other players’ types [15, 25]. Bergemann and Morris impose neither, and say so explicitly: where the earlier literature restricts the mediator, “our different motivation leads us to allow such unexplained correlation” [5, Sec. 1.2].

Obedience is the only constraint. Nothing requires the outcome to be implementable from the signals alone; a decision rule may induce any joint distribution over states and actions that the obedience inequalities permit. Information therefore enters as an incentive constraint rather than as a feasibility constraint, and it is this asymmetry that makes more information shrink the equilibrium set rather than enlarge it. In Bayes Nash equilibrium the two roles are conflated, which is why the corresponding ordering, due to Gossner [16], ranks structures by correlation possibilities as well as by information.

Writing $V_{i}(a_{i},b_{i},t_{i})$ for the expected payoff to player $i$ of type $t_{i}$ who is recommended $a_{i}$ and plays $b_{i}$ , obedience reads $V_{i}(a_{i},a_{i},\cdot)\geq V_{i}(a_{i},b_{i},\cdot)$ : a coordinatewise comparison of two functions of $t_{i}$ . Section 6 reproduces it with “coordinatewise” replaced by “Loewner”.

An expansion of $S=((T_{i}),\pi)$ is an information structure $S^{\ast}=((T_{i}\times T_{i}^{\prime}),\pi^{\ast})$ for some $((T_{i}^{\prime}),\pi^{\prime})$ , with $\pi^{\ast}$ a joint law on $\Omega\times T\times T^{\prime}$ whose $(\Omega,T)$ -marginal is $\pi$ ; players observe their signal under $S$ together with an additional signal. A strategy profile $\beta$ for $(G,S^{\ast})$ induces the decision rule $\sigma$ for $(G,S)$ obtained by averaging out the additional signals. We are now ready to state Theorem 1 of BM [5]:

Theorem 3.4 ([5, Thm. 1]).

A decision rule $\sigma$ is a Bayes correlated equilibrium of $(G,S)$ if and only if there is an expansion $S^{\ast}$ of $S$ and a Bayes Nash equilibrium of $(G,S^{\ast})$ that induces $\sigma$ .

Theorem 3.4 provides the foundational justification for using BCE to address the comparison of information structures. It says that the Bayes correlated equilibria of $(G,S)$ are exactly the behaviours consistent with the players having observed at least the signals in $S$ , whatever further information the analyst has failed to model. Properties shared by all of them are therefore robust to that ignorance, and an ordering built on $\mathrm{BCE}(G,\cdot)$ compares information structures without committing to a particular account of what else the players know. The omniscience of the mediator is the device that achieves this: an arbitrary correlating mechanism stands in for arbitrary unmodelled information. Section 8 proves the quantum analogue.

We turn to the ordering. In the one-player case an information structure is an experiment, and Blackwell’s theorem compares experiments by garbling. The many-player generalization replaces garbling by a player-by-player conditional independence requirement inside a combined structure.

Definition 3.5 (Individual sufficiency, [5, Def. 6]).

$S$ is individually sufficient for $S^{\prime}$ , written $S\succeq S^{\prime}$ , if there is a combined information structure $\pi^{\ast}:\Omega\to\Delta(T\times T^{\prime})$ , that is, a law whose $T$ -marginal is $\pi$ and whose $T^{\prime}$ -marginal is $\pi^{\prime}$ , such that for each player $i$ the conditional probability

\Pr\big(t_{i}^{\prime}\mid t_{i},t_{-i},\omega\big)\;=\;\frac{\sum_{t_{-i}^{\prime}}\pi^{\ast}\big((t_{i},t_{-i}),(t_{i}^{\prime},t_{-i}^{\prime})\mid\omega\big)}{\pi(t_{i},t_{-i}\mid\omega)}

is independent of $t_{-i}$ and $\omega$ , whenever the denominator is nonzero. The denominator is the stated one because summing $\pi^{\ast}$ over all of $T^{\prime}$ returns its $T$ -marginal.

Writing $\varphi_{i}(t_{i}^{\prime}\mid t_{i})$ for the common value of that conditional, individual sufficiency is equivalent to the existence of Markov kernels $\varphi_{i}:T_{i}\to\Delta(T_{i}^{\prime})$ satisfying

(1)

\varphi_{i}(t_{i}^{\prime}\mid t_{i})\,\pi(t_{i},t_{-i}\mid\omega)=\sum_{t_{-i}^{\prime}}\pi^{\ast}\big((t_{i},t_{-i}),(t_{i}^{\prime},t_{-i}^{\prime})\mid\omega\big)\qquad\text{for all }t_{i}^{\prime},t_{i},t_{-i},\omega,

which is the form used by Bergemann and Morris [5, eq. (9)] and the form we quantize. Note that (1) needs no side condition: where $\pi(t_{i},t_{-i}\mid\omega)=0$ both sides vanish, since the right-hand side is bounded above by the $T$ -marginal of $\pi^{\ast}$ .

Theorem 3.6 ([5, Thm. 2]).

$S\succeq S^{\prime}$ if and only if $\mathrm{BCE}(G,S)\subseteq\mathrm{BCE}(G,S^{\prime})$ for every basic game $G$ on the common basic structure. For $n=1$ the order $\succeq$ is Blackwell’s.

Theorem 3.6 is the result whose quantum analogue this paper constructs, so it is worth being explicit about which of its features the construction relies on and which it does not.

The soundness half rests on two properties of the transfer $\varphi_{i}$ , and both survive quantization. The incentive constraints under $S^{\prime}$ are $\varphi_{i}$ -averages of those under $S$ [5, eq. (10)], so obedience is transported by averaging rather than by any construction peculiar to classical signals; and the kernels in (1) depend on neither $\omega$ nor $t_{-i}$ , which is the whole content of individual sufficiency. Section 9 reproduces both. Averaging becomes the application of a positive linear map, which is the operation that preserves the order in which quantum obedience is expressed; and the conditional independence requirement becomes the demand that one local map serve for every state of nature.

The equivalence in Theorem 3.6 is exact, the statistical and incentive orderings coinciding on every pair of structures. In quantum systems, we established that the soundness half holds in general (Theorem 9.4), and the converse is established on two classes of pairs (Theorems 9.10-9.11).

One feature of the classical order is easy to misread and is worth stating plainly, because the quantum framework inherits it. Individual sufficiency ranks structures by beliefs and higher-order beliefs about the state alone. A structure and its expansion by a correlating device that conveys nothing about $\Omega$ are therefore equivalent in the order, even though the expansion allows the players to coordinate in ways the original does not [5, Example 1]. Correlation possibilities are invisible to the ordering because Bayes correlated equilibrium already grants the mediator arbitrary correlating power, so adding more changes no obedience constraint. The quantum counterpart of this observation is recorded in Section 7, where a structure is shown to be equivalent to the uninformative one exactly when each player’s local marginal does not vary with the state.

4. Quantum information structures

For a finite-dimensional Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ let $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ denote the bounded operators and $\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H})$ the density operators. A POVM with outcomes in a finite set $Y$ is a family $\{M^{y}\}_{y\in Y}$ with $M^{y}\succeq 0$ and $\sum_{y}M^{y}=\mathbb{1}$ . A linear map $\Phi:\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})\to\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}^{\prime})$ is positive if $\Phi(\xi)\succeq 0$ whenever $\xi\succeq 0$ , and trace preserving if $\operatorname{Tr}\Phi(\xi)=\operatorname{Tr}\xi$ for all $\xi$ . It is completely positive if $\Phi\otimes\mathrm{id}_{\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{C}^{d})}$ is positive for every $d\geq 1$ , that is, if $\Phi$ remains positive when applied to one half of a system whose other half is left alone. A channel is a completely positive trace-preserving map; these are the transformations a physical process can implement. Every channel is thus a positive trace-preserving map, but not conversely: transposition in a fixed basis is positive and trace preserving without being completely positive, so it is not a channel. The comparison relation of Section 9 is defined using positive trace-preserving maps, and not the smaller class of channels.

Definition 4.1 (Quantum information structure).

A quantum information structure $Q$ is defined as $Q=\big((\mathcal{H}_{i})_{i\in N},(\rho_{\omega})_{\omega\in\Omega}\big)$ with $\mathcal{H}=\bigotimes_{i}\mathcal{H}_{i}$ and $\rho_{\omega}\in\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{H})$ , player $i$ holding $\mathcal{H}_{i}$ . Equivalently $Q$ is the classical–quantum state $\rho^{Q}=\sum_{\omega}\psi(\omega)\lvert\omega\rangle\!\langle\omega\rvert_{\Omega}\otimes\rho_{\omega}$ , the $\Omega$ -register being held by the analyst and inaccessible to the players. Write $\rho_{i,\omega}:=\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}\rho_{\omega}$ for the local marginals.

To demonstrate how this generalizes the classical framework, we show how a standard classical information structure translates into this notation.

Example 4.2 (Embedding of classical structures).

A classical structure $S=((T_{i}),\pi)$ embeds into the quantum framework via the mapping $\iota(S)$ with $\mathcal{H}_{i}=\mathbb{C}^{T_{i}}$ and $\rho_{\omega}=\sum_{t\in T}\pi(t\mid\omega)\bigotimes_{i}\lvert t_{i}\rangle\!\langle t_{i}\rvert$ .

4.1. State correlation

The dependence of $\rho_{\omega}$ on $\omega$ is what distinguishes Definition 4.1 from the objects of [3, 2, 10], where a fixed state is shared and entanglement correlates actions without carrying information about nature.

The same restriction governs classical advice in that literature, and it can now be stated exactly. Let $\mathcal{L}$ be a finite set of advice values, let $p\in\Delta(\mathcal{L})$ be a distribution on it chosen independently of $\omega$ , and consider two players with signals $t_{1}\in T_{1}$ , $t_{2}\in T_{2}$ and actions $a_{1}\in A_{1}$ , $a_{2}\in A_{2}$ . Advice of this kind constrains the joint conditional behaviour to the form

(2)

P(a_{1},a_{2}\mid t_{1},t_{2})=\sum_{\lambda\in\mathcal{L}}p(\lambda)\,P(a_{1}\mid t_{1},\lambda)\,P(a_{2}\mid t_{2},\lambda),

following Brunner and Linden [10]. Equation (2) is the local-hidden-variable ansatz from which Bell inequalities are derived: the advice $\lambda$ is drawn once, before play, and its law $p$ carries no dependence on the state of nature. Belief-invariant structures are the degenerate case $\rho_{\omega}\equiv\rho$ of Definition 4.1. Only with $\omega$ -dependence, “more informative” is a meaningful relation between quantum structures.

4.2. No-signalling is not at issue

Because (2) is the hypothesis of Bell’s theorem, it is worth saying exactly what is and is not being relaxed. In the nonlocal-game reading of (2) the players’ signals $t_{1},t_{2}$ play the role of measurement settings chosen at spacelike separation, and the ansatz encodes two physical constraints on that arrangement: measurement independence, since the law $p$ of the advice does not depend on $t_{1},t_{2}$ ; and locality, since $P(a_{i}\mid t_{i},\lambda)$ does not depend on the other player’s setting. Under those constraints a violation of the resulting inequalities is a physical statement about the world.

Neither constraint is a law governing the objects compared here. In a game of incomplete information the payoff state $\omega$ is realized before play and is causally upstream of the signals, which are drawn from $\pi(\cdot\mid\omega)$ ; it is not a freely chosen setting, so conditioning a preparation on it is ordinary state preparation conditioned on a classical parameter, the same object that a quantum statistical model $\{\rho_{\omega}\}$ already is [11]. Nor are the players assumed to be spacelike separated. Bayes correlated equilibrium answers the question of what behaviour is consistent with the players observing at least the given information structure and possibly more, and Section 8 makes this precise: every equilibrium of the concept defined below is realized as a Bayes Nash equilibrium of an expansion whose state is prepared conditionally on the payoff state and whose subsystems are then distributed. That is the implementable content of the mediator, and it involves no transmission of any kind during play.

If instead one wishes to model agents who are spacelike separated and hold exactly the information in $Q$ , the appropriate restriction is belief invariance, which by Section 4.1 is the degenerate case $\rho_{\omega}\equiv\rho$ of Definition 4.1 and is the setting of [3, 25]. The present framework contains that case rather than contradicting it, and the two answer different questions: the belief-invariant concept fixes the information and varies the correlating device, while the concept used here fixes the correlating device as unrestricted and varies the information, which is what makes information comparable.

4.3. Classical actions and the scope of the linearity hypothesis

Players measure their subsystems and play classical actions. It is worth being precise about what this assumes, since linearity is used throughout.

Payoffs enter the analysis only through the outcome $\nu\in\Delta(\Omega\times A)$ , as $\nu\mapsto\sum_{\omega,a}u_{i}(a,\omega)\nu(\omega,a)$ , and $\nu$ is linear in the decision rule because the trace is linear. The linearity we use is therefore exactly the linearity of expected utility in the induced distribution over outcomes: no further restriction is imposed on $u_{i}$ , which may be an arbitrary real function on $A\times\Omega$ . Consequently the framework covers every finite basic game with von Neumann–Morgenstern payoffs and every finite-dimensional quantum information structure, which is precisely the scope of [5] on the classical side, as Section 7 confirms, by showing that the quantum equilibrium set at an embedded classical structure is exactly the classical one. Convexity and semidefinite representability are consequences of this, not additional hypotheses.

What lies outside is the class of quantization protocols in which the payoff is a nonlinear function of the pre-measurement state, as in the strategy spaces of Eisert–Wilkens–Lewenstein [12] and its descendants. That exclusion is not a loss of generality so much as a separation from a class where the solution concept itself is fragile: the survey [21] records that when payoffs fail to be linear in the strategy variables even existence of Nash equilibrium can fail. Since the present object is an ordering defined through equilibrium sets, a setting in which those sets may be empty is not a viable domain for it.

5. Quantum Bayes correlated equilibrium

5.1. Decision rules

The BM mediator observes $\omega$ and issues a private recommendation to each player. Its quantum counterpart does not touch the players’ subsystems; it splits the ensemble.

Definition 5.1 (Quantum decision rule).

A quantum decision rule for $(G,Q)$ is a family $\{\rho_{\omega}^{a}\}_{\omega\in\Omega,a\in A}$ of positive semidefinite operators on $\mathcal{H}$ with

\sum_{a\in A}\rho_{\omega}^{a}=\rho_{\omega}\qquad\text{for every }\omega\in\Omega.

Player $i$ privately receives the classical recommendation $a_{i}$ and retains $\mathcal{H}_{i}$ . The induced outcome is $\nu(\omega,a)=\psi(\omega)\operatorname{Tr}[\rho_{\omega}^{a}]$ .

Conditional on $(a,\omega)$ the players’ joint state is $\rho_{\omega}^{a}/\operatorname{Tr}[\rho_{\omega}^{a}]$ . The recommendation may be correlated both with $\omega$ , as BCE requires, and with the ensemble decomposition of $\rho_{\omega}$ , while the marginal $\rho_{\omega}$ is left intact. Note $\rho_{\omega}^{a}\preceq\rho_{\omega}$ , so $\operatorname{supp}\rho_{\omega}^{a}\subseteq\operatorname{supp}\rho_{\omega}$ .

Lemma 5.2 (Realizability is unconstrained).

For every $\nu\in\Delta(\Omega\times A)$ whose $\Omega$ -marginal is $\psi$ there is a quantum decision rule with outcome $\nu$ , namely the proportional rule $\rho_{\omega}^{a}:=\big(\nu(\omega,a)/\psi(\omega)\big)\rho_{\omega}$ .

Proof.

Each $\rho_{\omega}^{a}$ is a nonnegative multiple of a density operator, hence positive semidefinite; $\psi$ has full support, so the ratio is well defined; and $\sum_{a}\rho_{\omega}^{a}=\big(\sum_{a}\nu(\omega,a)/\psi(\omega)\big)\rho_{\omega}=\rho_{\omega}$ because $\sum_{a}\nu(\omega,a)=\psi(\omega)$ . The outcome is $\psi(\omega)\operatorname{Tr}[\rho_{\omega}^{a}]=\nu(\omega,a)$ . ∎

Lemma 5.2 is the counterpart of the fact that in BCE only obedience binds. It makes the comparison problem a question about incentives rather than attainability, and it is available only because the mediator sees $\omega$ .

5.2. Obedience

Definition 5.3 (Obedience operator).

For a decision rule $\{\rho_{\omega}^{a}\}$ , a player $i$ , a recommendation $a_{i}$ and a candidate action $b_{i}$ , set

(3)

X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}\;:=\;\sum_{\omega\in\Omega}\ \sum_{a_{-i}\in A_{-i}}\psi(\omega)\,u_{i}(b_{i},a_{-i},\omega)\ \operatorname{Tr}_{-i}\!\big[\rho_{\omega}^{(a_{i},a_{-i})}\big]\ \in\ \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{i}).

Each $X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}$ is Hermitian, because $\rho_{\omega}^{a}$ is positive semidefinite, the partial trace preserves Hermiticity, and the coefficients are real. If player $i$ obeys, the contribution to $i$ ’s expected payoff conditional on the recommendation $a_{i}$ is $\operatorname{Tr}[X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}]$ ; if instead $i$ measures $\mathcal{H}_{i}$ with a POVM $\{M^{b_{i}}\}_{b_{i}\in A_{i}}$ and plays the outcome while all others obey, the contribution is $\sum_{b_{i}}\operatorname{Tr}[M^{b_{i}}X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}]$ .

Definition 5.4 (QBCE).

A quantum decision rule $X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}$ is a quantum Bayes correlated equilibrium of $(G,Q)$ if for every $i\in N$ , every $a_{i}\in A_{i}$ and every POVM $\{M^{b_{i}}\}_{b_{i}\in A_{i}}$ on $\mathcal{H}_{i}$ ,

(4)

\sum_{b_{i}\in A_{i}}\operatorname{Tr}\!\big[M^{b_{i}}X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}\big]\ \leq\ \operatorname{Tr}\!\big[X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}\big].

$\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q)\subseteq\Delta(\Omega\times A)$ denotes the set of QBCE outcomes.

Choosing $M^{a_{i}}=\mathbb{1}$ and $M^{b}=0$ otherwise shows the left side of (4) always attains $\operatorname{Tr}[X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}]$ ; the condition says this choice is optimal.

Definition 5.5 (Advice model).

$\mathrm{QBCE}_{\mathrm{pp}}(G,Q)$ is defined by restricting (4) to deterministic relabellings of the recommendation, i.e. to the constraints $\operatorname{Tr}[X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}]\leq\operatorname{Tr}[X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}]$ for all $b_{i}\in A_{i}$ .

Definitions 5.4 and 5.5 are the equilibrium-level images of the two resource models of Abbott–Mhalla–Pocreau [2]: direct quantum access versus classical advice extracted from a quantum device. Since the relabelling constraints are a subset of the POVM constraints, $\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q)\subseteq\mathrm{QBCE}_{\mathrm{pp}}(G,Q)$ always. The inclusion is strict, and more than that: Section 7 shows that
$\mathrm{QBCE}_{\mathrm{pp}}(G,Q)$ does not depend on $Q$ at all, so the advice model assigns every quantum information structure the same equilibrium set and cannot order structures. This is why Definition 5.4, and not Definition 5.5, is the concept used throughout.

6. The Loewner characterization

Definition 6.1 (Loewner order).

For Hermitian operators $Z,W$ on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, write $Z\succeq W$ , and say that $Z$ Loewner dominates $W$ , if $Z-W$ is positive semidefinite, that is, if $\langle v\rvert(Z-W)\lvert v\rangle\geq 0$ for every vector $\lvert v\rangle$ . The relation $\succeq$ is a partial order on the real vector space of Hermitian operators, reflexive, transitive and antisymmetric, and it is the natural order induced by the cone of positive semidefinite operators. On operators that are diagonal in a common basis it reduces to comparison of the diagonal entries one by one, so for $1\times 1$ matrices it is the order on the reals.

Two properties are used repeatedly below and are recorded here. First, if $Z\succeq W$ then $\operatorname{Tr}[FZ]\geq\operatorname{Tr}[FW]$ for every positive semidefinite $F$ , since $\operatorname{Tr}[F(Z-W)]\geq 0$ whenever both factors are positive semidefinite. Second, the order is preserved by every positive linear map $\Phi$ , since $Z-W\succeq 0$ gives $\Phi(Z)-\Phi(W)=\Phi(Z-W)\succeq 0$ ; this is what transports obedience in Section 9. The order is partial rather than total: two Hermitian operators need not be comparable, and Section 7 exploits exactly this in showing that a decision rule can fail obedience because a difference of obedience operators has eigenvalues of both signs.

Theorem 6.2 (Obedience is Loewner domination).

A quantum decision rule $X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}$ satisfies (4) for the pair $(i,a_{i})$ if and only if

(5)

X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}\ \succeq\ X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}\qquad\text{for every }b_{i}\in A_{i},

where $\succeq$ is the Loewner order. Consequently a rule is a QBCE if and only if (5) holds for every $i$ and every $a_{i}$ .

Proof.

( $\Leftarrow$ ) Assume (5) and let $\{M^{b_{i}}\}$ be a POVM on $\mathcal{H}_{i}$ . For positive semidefinite $F$ and $H$ one has $\operatorname{Tr}[FH]\geq 0$ ; taking $F=M^{b_{i}}$ and $C=X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}-X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}$ gives $\operatorname{Tr}[M^{b_{i}}X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}]\leq\operatorname{Tr}[M^{b_{i}}X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}]$ for each $b_{i}$ . Summing and using $\sum_{b_{i}}M^{b_{i}}=\mathbb{1}$ ,

\sum_{b_{i}}\operatorname{Tr}\big[M^{b_{i}}X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}\big]\leq\operatorname{Tr}\Big[\Big(\sum_{b_{i}}M^{b_{i}}\Big)X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}\Big]=\operatorname{Tr}\big[X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}\big].

( $\Rightarrow$ ) Assume (4) and suppose (5) fails for some $b^{\ast}$ , necessarily $b^{\ast}\neq a_{i}$ . Then $W:=X_{i}^{a_{i},b^{\ast}}-X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}$ is Hermitian with a positive eigenvalue; let $\lvert v\rangle$ be a corresponding unit eigenvector and $\delta:=\langle v\rvert W\lvert v\rangle>0$ . Set $M^{b^{\ast}}:=\lvert v\rangle\!\langle v\rvert$ , $M^{a_{i}}:=\mathbb{1}-\lvert v\rangle\!\langle v\rvert$ and $M^{b}:=0$ for $b\notin\{a_{i},b^{\ast}\}$ , a POVM. Then

\sum_{b_{i}}\operatorname{Tr}\big[M^{b_{i}}X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}\big]=\langle v\rvert X_{i}^{a_{i},b^{\ast}}\lvert v\rangle+\operatorname{Tr}\big[X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}\big]-\langle v\rvert X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}\lvert v\rangle=\operatorname{Tr}\big[X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}\big]+\delta,

contradicting (4). ∎

Theorem 6.2 is the technical hinge of the paper. It replaces a quantifier over a continuum of POVMs by finitely many operator inequalities, and it identifies quantum obedience as the exact operator analogue of the classical coordinatewise condition of Section 3. Three consequences are immediate.

Corollary 6.3 (QBCE is a spectrahedron).

Fix $G$ and $Q$ . The set of QBCE decision rules is

\Big\{\{\rho_{\omega}^{a}\}:\ \rho_{\omega}^{a}\succeq 0\ \forall\omega,a;\quad\textstyle\sum_{a}\rho_{\omega}^{a}=\rho_{\omega}\ \forall\omega;\quad X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}-X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}\succeq 0\ \forall i,a_{i},b_{i}\Big\},

cut out by finitely many linear matrix inequalities and linear equalities in the variables $\{\rho_{\omega}^{a}\}$ . It is convex and compact; optimizing a linear objective over it is a semidefinite program; and $\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q)$ is convex and compact, being its image under the linear outcome map.

Proof.

By Theorem 6.2 these are exactly the equilibrium conditions. Each $X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}$ is a linear function of $\{\rho_{\omega}^{a}\}$ by (3), since the partial trace is linear and the coefficients $\psi(\omega)u_{i}(b_{i},a_{-i},\omega)$ are constants; hence each constraint is a linear matrix inequality. A set defined by finitely many linear matrix inequalities and linear equalities is a spectrahedron, hence closed and convex, and it is bounded because $0\preceq\rho_{\omega}^{a}\preceq\rho_{\omega}$ forces $\|\rho_{\omega}^{a}\|\leq 1$ . Linear images of convex compact sets are convex and compact. ∎

Proposition 6.4 (QBCE is nonempty).

For every basic game $G$ and every quantum information structure $Q$ we have $\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q)\neq\emptyset$ . Explicitly, choose for each $\omega$ a mixed Nash equilibrium $\varsigma_{\omega}=\bigotimes_{i}\varsigma_{\omega,i}\in\Delta(A)$ of the complete-information game $(A,u(\cdot,\omega))$ , which exists by Nash’s theorem since $A$ is finite. Then $\rho_{\omega}^{a}:=\varsigma_{\omega}(a)\rho_{\omega}$ is a QBCE, with outcome $\nu(\omega,a)=\psi(\omega)\varsigma_{\omega}(a)$ .

Proof.

This is a decision rule by Lemma 5.2. By (3) and $\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}\rho_{\omega}=\rho_{i,\omega}$ ,

X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}-X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}=\sum_{\omega}\psi(\omega)\,\varsigma_{\omega,i}(a_{i})\,\kappa_{i}(\omega;a_{i},b_{i})\,\rho_{i,\omega},

where

\kappa_{i}(\omega;a_{i},b_{i}):=\sum_{a_{-i}}\big(u_{i}(a_{i},a_{-i},\omega)-u_{i}(b_{i},a_{-i},\omega)\big)\varsigma_{\omega,-i}(a_{-i}),

using $\varsigma_{\omega}(a_{i},a_{-i})=\varsigma_{\omega,i}(a_{i})\varsigma_{\omega,-i}(a_{-i})$ . If $\varsigma_{\omega,i}(a_{i})>0$ then $a_{i}$ is a best response to $\varsigma_{\omega,-i}$ in the complete-information game, so $\kappa_{i}(\omega;a_{i},b_{i})\geq 0$ ; if $\varsigma_{\omega,i}(a_{i})=0$ the term vanishes. Hence the displayed operator is a nonnegative combination of the positive semidefinite operators $\rho_{i,\omega}$ , so it is positive semidefinite, and Theorem 6.2 applies. ∎

The rule constructed in Proposition 6.4 operates independently of the players’ quantum subsystems and relying solely on a state-wise Nash equilibrium; it is the counterpart of the observation that a Bayes Nash equilibrium of $(G,S)$ is a BCE of $(G,S)$ .

Remark 6.5 (Computation).

Corollary 6.3 places the apparatus inside semidefinite programming: computing the QBCE-optimal value of a linear welfare objective, or deciding membership of an outcome, is a single semidefinite program (SDP) whose size is polynomial in $|\Omega|$ , $|A|$ and the dimensions $\dim\mathcal{H}_{i}$ . Section 10 carries this out in a two-player example.

7. Recovery of the classical theory, and the advice model

Theorem 7.1 (Exact classical recovery).

For every classical information structure $S$ and every basic game $G$ ,

\mathrm{QBCE}\big(G,\iota(S)\big)\;=\;\mathrm{BCE}(G,S).

Moreover a diagonal quantum decision rule satisfies (5) if and only if the associated classical decision rule is obedient in the sense of Definition 3.3.

Proof.

Step 1: diagonal rules correspond exactly. Let $\sigma:T\times\Omega\to\Delta(A)$ and set $\rho_{\omega}^{a}:=\sum_{t}\pi(t\mid\omega)\sigma(a\mid t,\omega)\bigotimes_{i}\lvert t_{i}\rangle\!\langle t_{i}\rvert$ , a decision rule for $\iota(S)$ whose outcome is that of $\sigma$ . Each $\rho_{\omega}^{a}$ is diagonal in the product basis, hence by (3) so is each $X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}$ ; writing $X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}=\sum_{t_{i}}x_{b_{i}}(t_{i})\lvert t_{i}\rangle\!\langle t_{i}\rvert$ we obtain

x_{b_{i}}(t_{i})=\sum_{\omega,t_{-i},a_{-i}}\psi(\omega)\pi(t_{i},t_{-i}\mid\omega)\sigma(a_{i},a_{-i}\mid t,\omega)u_{i}(b_{i},a_{-i},\omega)=V_{i}(a_{i},b_{i},t_{i}).

For diagonal Hermitian operators the Loewner order is coordinatewise domination, so (5) reads $x_{a_{i}}(t_{i})\geq x_{b_{i}}(t_{i})$ for all $t_{i}$ and $b_{i}$ , which is Definition 3.3. With Theorem 6.2 this proves the second assertion and gives $\mathrm{BCE}(G,S)\subseteq\mathrm{QBCE}(G,\iota(S))$ .

Step 2: general rules reduce to diagonal ones. Let $\{\rho_{\omega}^{a}\}$ be any QBCE of $(G,\iota(S))$ with outcome $\nu$ . Let $\mathcal{P}_{i}(\xi):=\sum_{t_{i}}\lvert t_{i}\rangle\!\langle t_{i}\rvert\xi\lvert t_{i}\rangle\!\langle t_{i}\rvert$ be the pinching channel and $\mathcal{P}:=\bigotimes_{i}\mathcal{P}_{i}$ , and set $\tilde{\rho}_{\omega}^{a}:=\mathcal{P}(\rho_{\omega}^{a})$ . Then $\tilde{\rho}_{\omega}^{a}\succeq 0$ , and $\sum_{a}\tilde{\rho}_{\omega}^{a}=\mathcal{P}(\rho_{\omega})=\rho_{\omega}$ because $\rho_{\omega}$ is diagonal and $\mathcal{P}$ fixes diagonal operators; so this is a decision rule, with outcome $\nu$ since $\mathcal{P}$ is trace preserving, and it is diagonal.

Its obedience operators are $\mathcal{P}_{i}(X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}})$ . Indeed $\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}\circ\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}_{i}\circ\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}$ : by linearity it suffices to check this on product operators $\xi_{i}\otimes\xi_{-i}$ , where both sides equal $\mathcal{P}_{i}(\xi_{i})\operatorname{Tr}[\xi_{-i}]$ because $\mathcal{P}_{-i}:=\bigotimes_{j\neq i}D_{j}$ is trace preserving; substituting into (3) and using linearity of $\mathcal{P}_{i}$ gives the claim. Since $\mathcal{P}_{i}$ is positive, $X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}\succeq X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}$ implies $\mathcal{P}_{i}(X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}})\succeq\mathcal{P}_{i}(X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}})$ , so $\{\tilde{\rho}_{\omega}^{a}\}$ is a QBCE. Being diagonal it arises from a classical rule $\sigma$ via $\sigma(a\mid t,\omega):=\langle t\rvert\tilde{\rho}_{\omega}^{a}\lvert t\rangle/\pi(t\mid\omega)$ where $\pi(t\mid\omega)>0$ and arbitrarily elsewhere; by Step 1 that $\sigma$ is a BCE of $(G,S)$ with outcome $\nu$ . Hence $\mathrm{QBCE}(G,\iota(S))\subseteq\mathrm{BCE}(G,S)$ . ∎

A coherent mediator, meaning one that splits a diagonal $\rho_{\omega}$ into non-diagonal components, which is possible, for instance $\tfrac{1}{2}\mathbb{1}=\tfrac{1}{4}\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\ 1&1\end{pmatrix}+\tfrac{1}{4}\begin{pmatrix}1&-1\\ -1&1\end{pmatrix}$ , therefore produces no outcomes beyond the classical ones. Coherence in the recommendation buys extra realizations and costs exactly as much in extra obedience constraints. The embedding $\iota$ is thus exact, and the quantum theory is a conservative extension of BM. The completeness results of Section 9.2 depend on this exactness.

Theorem 7.2 (The advice model is degenerate).

For every basic game $G$ and every quantum information structure $Q$ ,

\mathrm{QBCE}_{\mathrm{pp}}(G,Q)=\Big\{\nu:\ \Xi_{i}(\nu;a_{i},b_{i})\geq 0\ \ \forall i,a_{i},b_{i}\Big\}=\mathrm{BCE}(G,S_{\emptyset}),

where $\nu$ ranges over distributions on $\Omega\times A$ with $\Omega$ -marginal $\psi$ and

\Xi_{i}(\nu;a_{i},b_{i}):=\sum_{\omega,a_{-i}}\nu(\omega,a_{i},a_{-i})\big[u_{i}(a_{i},a_{-i},\omega)-u_{i}(b_{i},a_{-i},\omega)\big].

In particular $\mathrm{QBCE}_{\mathrm{pp}}(G,Q)$ does not depend on $Q$ , so the order it induces on quantum information structures is the trivial one in which all structures are equivalent.

Proof.

Composing $\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}$ with $\operatorname{Tr}$ gives the full trace, so by (3)

\operatorname{Tr}\big[X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}\big]=\sum_{\omega,a_{-i}}\psi(\omega)u_{i}(b_{i},a_{-i},\omega)\operatorname{Tr}\big[\rho_{\omega}^{(a_{i},a_{-i})}\big]=\sum_{\omega,a_{-i}}u_{i}(b_{i},a_{-i},\omega)\,\nu(\omega,a_{i},a_{-i}),

which depends on the rule only through its outcome. Hence the constraints of Definition 5.5 are exactly $\Xi_{i}(\nu;a_{i},b_{i})\geq 0$ , so every $\mathrm{QBCE}_{\mathrm{pp}}$ outcome lies in the displayed set. Conversely, if $\nu$ lies in that set, Lemma 5.2 realizes it on $Q$ and the identity just proved shows the constraints hold. For the second equality take $S=S_{\emptyset}$ in Definition 3.3: each $T_{i}$ is a singleton, $\nu(\omega,a)=\psi(\omega)\sigma(a\mid\omega)$ , and the BCE inequalities reduce to $\Xi_{i}(\nu;a_{i},b_{i})\geq 0$ . ∎

Under classical post-processing the players never use their quantum systems, so those systems impose no incentive constraints and carry no comparative content. Any quantum analogue of Bergemann–Morris must therefore use Definition 5.4. We record the separation of the two models concretely.

Example 7.3 (Helstrom separation).

Let $n=1$ , $\Omega=A=\{0,1\}$ , $\psi$ uniform, $u(a,\omega)=\mathbb{1}[a=\omega]$ , $\mathcal{H}=\mathbb{C}^{2}$ , and

\rho_{0}=\lvert 0\rangle\!\langle 0\rvert,\qquad\rho_{1}=\lvert+\rangle\!\langle+\rvert,\qquad\lvert+\rangle=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\lvert 0\rangle+\lvert 1\rangle),

a state-correlated ensemble. For fixed $q\in\Delta(A)$ the rule $\rho_{\omega}^{a}:=q(a)\rho_{\omega}$ , whose outcome $\nu(\omega,a)=\tfrac{1}{2}q(a)$ carries no information, lies in $\mathrm{QBCE}_{\mathrm{pp}}$ but not in $\mathrm{QBCE}$ whenever $q(a)>0$ .

Proof.

Here $X^{a,b}=\sum_{\omega}\psi(\omega)u(b,\omega)q(a)\rho_{\omega}=\tfrac{q(a)}{2}\rho_{b}$ , so $\operatorname{Tr}[X^{a,b}]=\tfrac{q(a)}{2}$ for both $b$ and all relabelling constraints hold with equality; thus $\nu\in\mathrm{QBCE}_{\mathrm{pp}}$ , as Theorem 7.2 requires. By Theorem 6.2, membership in $\mathrm{QBCE}$ would require $\tfrac{q(a)}{2}\rho_{a}\succeq\tfrac{q(a)}{2}\rho_{b}$ for both ordered pairs, i.e. $\rho_{0}\succeq\rho_{1}$ and $\rho_{1}\succeq\rho_{0}$ . But

\rho_{0}-\rho_{1}=\tfrac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix}1&-1\\ -1&-1\end{pmatrix}\qquad\text{has eigenvalues }\pm\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}},

so neither domination holds. Quantitatively, the best deviation exceeds the obedience bound by $\tfrac{q(a)}{2}\lambda_{\max}(\rho_{0}-\rho_{1})=\tfrac{q(a)}{2\sqrt{2}}$ ; equivalently the Helstrom success probability $\tfrac{1}{2}+\tfrac{1}{4}\|\rho_{0}-\rho_{1}\|_{1}=\tfrac{2+\sqrt{2}}{4}\approx 0.8536$ strictly exceeds both the value $\tfrac{1}{2}$ of ignoring the system and the value $\tfrac{3}{4}$ of the computational-basis measurement. ∎

7.1. When the quantum structure carries no incentive content

Before turning to the ordering we identify exactly which structures sit at its bottom. Write $\rho_{i,\omega}:=\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}\rho_{\omega}$ for the local marginals, and call $Q$ locally flat if $\rho_{i,\omega}$ is independent of $\omega$ for every $i$ , with common value $\rho_{i}$ .

Theorem 7.4 (Incentive-trivial structures).

$\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q)=\mathrm{BCE}(G,S_{\emptyset})$ for every basic game $G$ if and only if $Q$ is locally flat.

Proof.

( $\Leftarrow$ ) Since $\mathrm{QBCE}\subseteq\mathrm{QBCE}_{\mathrm{pp}}$ and $\mathrm{QBCE}_{\mathrm{pp}}(G,Q)=\mathrm{BCE}(G,S_{\emptyset})$ by Theorem 7.2, only the inclusion $\mathrm{BCE}(G,S_{\emptyset})\subseteq\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q)$ needs proof. Let $\nu\in\mathrm{BCE}(G,S_{\emptyset})$ , so $\Xi_{i}(\nu;a_{i},b_{i})\geq 0$ for all $i,a_{i},b_{i}$ , and take the proportional rule $\rho_{\omega}^{a}=(\nu(\omega,a)/\psi(\omega))\rho_{\omega}$ of Lemma 5.2, whose outcome is $\nu$ . By (3) and local flatness,

X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}=\sum_{\omega,a_{-i}}\psi(\omega)u_{i}(b_{i},a_{-i},\omega)\frac{\nu(\omega,a_{i},a_{-i})}{\psi(\omega)}\,\rho_{i}=\Big(\sum_{\omega,a_{-i}}u_{i}(b_{i},a_{-i},\omega)\nu(\omega,a_{i},a_{-i})\Big)\rho_{i},

so $X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}-X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}=\Xi_{i}(\nu;a_{i},b_{i})\,\rho_{i}\succeq 0$ , and Theorem 6.2 applies.

( $\Rightarrow$ ) Suppose $\rho_{i,\omega_{0}}\neq\rho_{i,\omega_{1}}$ for some player $i$ and states $\omega_{0}\neq\omega_{1}$ . Take the basic game in which every player $j\neq i$ has a singleton action set, $A_{i}=\{0,1\}$ , $u_{j}\equiv 0$ for $j\neq i$ ,

u_{i}(b_{i},\omega):=\mathbb{1}\big[b_{i}=0,\ \omega=\omega_{0}\big]+\mathbb{1}\big[b_{i}=1,\ \omega=\omega_{1}\big],

and $\psi$ any full-support prior with $\psi(\omega_{0})=\psi(\omega_{1})=:c$ . The outcome $\nu(\omega,b_{i})=\tfrac{1}{2}\psi(\omega)$ satisfies $\Xi_{i}\equiv 0$ , so it lies in $\mathrm{BCE}(G,S_{\emptyset})$ . Let $\{\rho_{\omega}^{a}\}$ be any decision rule with this outcome and put $R^{a}(\omega):=\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[\rho_{\omega}^{a}]\succeq 0$ , so $\sum_{a}R^{a}(\omega)=\rho_{i,\omega}$ and $\operatorname{Tr}R^{a}(\omega)=\tfrac{1}{2}$ for all $\omega,a$ . Suppressing the singleton $a_{-i}$ , (3) gives $X_{i}^{a,0}=c\,R^{a}(\omega_{0})$ and $X_{i}^{a,1}=c\,R^{a}(\omega_{1})$ , so obedience (5) requires $R^{0}(\omega_{0})\succeq R^{0}(\omega_{1})$ at $a=0$ and $R^{1}(\omega_{1})\succeq R^{1}(\omega_{0})$ at $a=1$ . But $\operatorname{Tr}[R^{0}(\omega_{0})-R^{0}(\omega_{1})]=\tfrac{1}{2}-\tfrac{1}{2}=0$ , and a positive semidefinite operator with zero trace vanishes, so $R^{0}(\omega_{0})=R^{0}(\omega_{1})$ ; symmetrically $R^{1}(\omega_{0})=R^{1}(\omega_{1})$ . Summing over $a$ gives $\rho_{i,\omega_{0}}=\rho_{i,\omega_{1}}$ , a contradiction. Hence no rule with this outcome is obedient and $\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q)\neq\mathrm{BCE}(G,S_{\emptyset})$ . ∎

All incentive content of a quantum information structure is therefore carried by the $\omega$ -dependence of its local marginals: obedience is an interim condition on what player $i$ holds, and the only trace of the global state entering (3) is $\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}$ of the decision rule’s components. When the marginals do not vary with $\omega$ , the proportional rule makes every obedience operator a scalar multiple of one fixed $\rho_{i}$ , collapsing the Loewner order to the scalar order. Restricted to classical structures via Theorem 7.1, the criterion says that $S$ is BCE-equivalent to $S_{\emptyset}$ exactly when each player’s marginal signal distribution is $\omega$ -independent, i.e. when every type of every player holds the prior belief and this is common knowledge, which is the condition that $S$ has the canonical representation of $S_{\emptyset}$ , as in [5, Example 1].

8. Foundations of the solution concept

Theorem 3.4 characterizes classical Bayes correlated equilibrium as the behaviour arising in Bayes Nash equilibrium of an expansion. We prove the quantum analogue, and then show that the mediator is not a physical operation on the players’ systems.

Definition 8.1 (Expansion, split strategies).

An expansion of $Q$ is a structure $Q^{\ast}$ with $\mathcal{H}_{i}^{\ast}=\mathcal{H}_{i}\otimes E_{i}$ and $\operatorname{Tr}_{E}\rho_{\omega}^{\ast}=\rho_{\omega}$ for all $\omega$ . Given an orthonormal basis $\{\lvert e\rangle\}$ of $E_{i}$ , a split strategy for player $i$ is the sequential procedure: measure $E_{i}$ in that basis, obtain $e$ , then measure $\mathcal{H}_{i}$ with a POVM $\{N_{e}^{b_{i}}\}_{b_{i}\in A_{i}}$ and play the outcome. Because the two measurements act on different tensor factors they commute, and the induced POVM on $\mathcal{H}_{i}^{\ast}$ has elements $\sum_{e}N_{e}^{b_{i}}\otimes\lvert e\rangle\!\langle e\rvert$ .

Lemma 8.2 (Deviations collapse on a block-diagonal expansion).

Let $Q^{\ast}$ be an expansion whose ancillas carry orthonormal bases $\{\lvert a_{i}\rangle\}$ and suppose $\rho_{\omega}^{\ast}$ is block diagonal with respect to $\{\lvert a\rangle\!\langle a\rvert\}_{a\in A}$ , $\lvert a\rangle\!\langle a\rvert:=\bigotimes_{i}\lvert a_{i}\rangle\!\langle a_{i}\rvert$ , say $\rho_{\omega}^{\ast}=\sum_{a}\varrho_{\omega}^{a}\otimes\lvert a\rangle\!\langle a\rvert$ . Fix $i$ and let every player $j\neq i$ measure $E_{j}$ in $\{\lvert a_{j}\rangle\}$ and play the outcome. Then every POVM $\{M^{b_{i}}\}$ on $\mathcal{H}_{i}\otimes E_{i}$ induces the same joint distribution over $(b_{i},a_{-i},\omega)$ as the split strategy with second-stage POVMs $M_{a_{i}}^{b_{i}}:=(\mathbb{1}\otimes\langle a_{i}\rvert)M^{b_{i}}(\mathbb{1}\otimes\lvert a_{i}\rangle)$ .

Proof.

Write $M^{b_{i}}=\sum_{a_{i},a_{i}^{\prime}}M^{b_{i}}_{a_{i}a_{i}^{\prime}}\otimes\lvert a_{i}\rangle\!\langle a_{i}^{\prime}\rvert$ ; the diagonal blocks are the $M_{a_{i}}^{b_{i}}$ . For each $a_{i}$ these form a POVM on $\mathcal{H}_{i}$ : a diagonal block of a positive semidefinite operator is positive semidefinite, and $\sum_{b_{i}}M^{b_{i}}=\mathbb{1}$ gives $\sum_{b_{i}}M_{a_{i}}^{b_{i}}=\mathbb{1}_{\mathcal{H}_{i}}$ blockwise.

The probability of $(b_{i},a_{-i})$ in state $\omega$ is $\operatorname{Tr}\big[\big(M^{b_{i}}\otimes\bigotimes_{j\neq i}\lvert a_{j}\rangle\!\langle a_{j}\rvert\big)\rho_{\omega}^{\ast}\big]$ . Expanding $\rho_{\omega}^{\ast}$ , the factors $\langle a_{j}|a_{j}^{\prime}\rangle\langle a_{j}^{\prime}|a_{j}\rangle$ force $a_{-i}^{\prime}=a_{-i}$ , while on $\mathcal{H}_{i}\otimes E_{i}$ ,

\operatorname{Tr}\big[M^{b_{i}}\big(X\otimes\lvert a_{i}^{\prime}\rangle\!\langle a_{i}^{\prime}\rvert\big)\big]=\sum_{a_{i},a_{i}^{\prime\prime}}\operatorname{Tr}\big[M^{b_{i}}_{a_{i}a_{i}^{\prime\prime}}X\big]\langle a_{i}^{\prime\prime}|a_{i}^{\prime}\rangle\langle a_{i}^{\prime}|a_{i}\rangle=\operatorname{Tr}\big[M^{b_{i}}_{a_{i}^{\prime}a_{i}^{\prime}}X\big],

so only the diagonal blocks contribute, giving the expression computed for the split strategy. ∎

Theorem 8.3 (Quantum analogue of BM Theorem 1).

Let $\{\rho_{\omega}^{a}\}$ be a quantum decision rule for $(G,Q)$ , let $E_{i}:=\mathbb{C}^{A_{i}}$ , and let $Q^{\ast}$ be the canonical expansion $\rho_{\omega}^{\ast}:=\sum_{a\in A}\rho_{\omega}^{a}\otimes\lvert a\rangle\!\langle a\rvert$ . Then $Q^{\ast}$ is an expansion of $Q$ , and the truthful profile, in which each player measures $E_{i}$ in the basis $\{\lvert a_{i}\rangle\}$ and plays the outcome, is a quantum Bayes Nash equilibrium of $(G,Q^{\ast})$ under split deviations if and only if $\{\rho_{\omega}^{a}\}$ is a QBCE of $(G,Q)$ . The truthful profile induces $\{\rho_{\omega}^{a}\}$ .

Proof.

$\operatorname{Tr}_{E}\rho_{\omega}^{\ast}=\sum_{a}\rho_{\omega}^{a}=\rho_{\omega}$ , so $Q^{\ast}$ is an expansion. Suppose all players $j\neq i$ play truthfully and player $i$ uses the split strategy with second-stage POVMs $\{M_{a_{i}}^{b_{i}}\}$ . The probability of the joint action profile $(b_{i},a_{-i})$ in state $\omega$ is

\sum_{a^{\prime}\in A}\operatorname{Tr}\Big[\Big(\big(\textstyle\sum_{a_{i}}M_{a_{i}}^{b_{i}}\otimes\lvert a_{i}\rangle\!\langle a_{i}\rvert\big)\otimes\bigotimes_{j\neq i}\lvert a_{j}\rangle\!\langle a_{j}\rvert\Big)\big(\rho_{\omega}^{a^{\prime}}\otimes\lvert a^{\prime}\rangle\!\langle a^{\prime}\rvert\big)\Big]

\;=\;\sum_{a_{i}}\operatorname{Tr}\big[(M_{a_{i}}^{b_{i}}\otimes\mathbb{1}_{-i})\rho_{\omega}^{(a_{i},a_{-i})}\big],

since the ancilla projectors force $a^{\prime}=(a_{i},a_{-i})$ . Player $i$ ’s expected payoff is therefore

\sum_{\omega,b_{i},a_{-i}}\psi(\omega)u_{i}(b_{i},a_{-i},\omega)\sum_{a_{i}}\operatorname{Tr}\big[(M_{a_{i}}^{b_{i}}\otimes\mathbb{1})\rho_{\omega}^{(a_{i},a_{-i})}\big]=\sum_{a_{i}}\sum_{b_{i}}\operatorname{Tr}\big[M_{a_{i}}^{b_{i}}X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}\big]

by (3), and the truthful choice $M_{a_{i}}^{b_{i}}=\delta_{a_{i}b_{i}}\mathbb{1}$ gives $\sum_{a_{i}}\operatorname{Tr}[X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}]$ . The constraint decouples over $a_{i}$ , the families $\{M_{a_{i}}^{b_{i}}\}_{b_{i}}$ being independent POVMs, so truthfulness is optimal if and only if for each $a_{i}$ and every POVM $\{M^{b_{i}}\}$ on $\mathcal{H}_{i}$ , $\sum_{b_{i}}\operatorname{Tr}[M^{b_{i}}X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}]\leq\operatorname{Tr}[X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}]$ , which is Definition 5.4. Taking $M_{a_{i}}^{b_{i}}=\delta_{a_{i}b_{i}}\mathbb{1}$ in the displayed probability shows the truthful profile induces $\{\rho_{\omega}^{a}\}$ . ∎

Corollary 8.4 (Arbitrary deviations).

In Theorem 8.3 the deviation class may be enlarged to all POVMs on $\mathcal{H}_{i}\otimes E_{i}$ , including those entangling the recommendation register with the payoff-relevant subsystem.

Proof.

The canonical expansion state is block diagonal with respect to $\{\lvert a\rangle\!\langle a\rvert\}$ , so by Lemma 8.2 every POVM on $\mathcal{H}_{i}\otimes E_{i}$ is payoff-equivalent to a split strategy. The supremum of player $i$ ’s payoff over arbitrary deviations therefore equals the supremum over split deviations, and Theorem 8.3 applies. ∎

A block-diagonal state is blind to the off-diagonal blocks of a measurement operator: coherence between distinct recommendations is simply not present in $\rho_{\omega}^{\ast}$ , so no deviation can exploit it. Measurement disturbance, which might be expected to obstruct the argument, does not.

Proposition 8.5 (The mediator is not a quantum instrument).

There are a quantum information structure $Q$ with $n=1$ , a decision problem $D$ , and a QBCE decision rule of $(D,Q)$ for which no family of positive maps, and in particular no family of completely positive maps, $\mathcal{I}_{a}$ satisfies $\mathcal{I}_{a}(\rho_{\omega})=\rho_{\omega}^{a}$ for all $\omega$ and $a$ .

Proof.

Let $\mathcal{H}=\mathbb{C}^{2}$ , $\Omega=\{1,2,3,4\}$ , $\psi$ uniform, and $\rho_{1}=\lvert 0\rangle\!\langle 0\rvert$ , $\rho_{2}=\lvert 1\rangle\!\langle 1\rvert$ , $\rho_{3}=\lvert+\rangle\!\langle+\rvert$ , $\rho_{4}=\lvert{+}i\rangle\!\langle{+}i\rvert$ with $\lvert{+}i\rangle=(\lvert 0\rangle+i\lvert 1\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ ; their Bloch vectors $e_{z},-e_{z},e_{x},e_{y}$ affinely span $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ , so $\{\rho_{\omega}\}$ spans the real space of Hermitian operators on $\mathbb{C}^{2}$ . Let $A=\{0,1\}$ and take $\rho_{\omega}^{0}:=\mathbb{1}[\omega=1]\rho_{\omega}$ , $\rho_{\omega}^{1}:=\mathbb{1}[\omega\neq 1]\rho_{\omega}$ , a decision rule. It is a QBCE for the decision problem with $u(a,\omega):=\mathbb{1}[a=0,\omega=1]+\mathbb{1}[a=1,\omega\neq 1]$ : by Theorem 6.2, obedience at $a=0$ requires $\sum_{\omega}\psi(\omega)[u(0,\omega)-u(1,\omega)]\rho_{\omega}^{0}=\psi(1)\rho_{1}\succeq 0$ and at $a=1$ requires $\sum_{\omega\neq 1}\psi(\omega)\rho_{\omega}\succeq 0$ , both of which hold.

Suppose $\mathcal{I}_{0}$ were linear with $\mathcal{I}_{0}(\rho_{\omega})=\rho_{\omega}^{0}$ for all $\omega$ . Since the $\rho_{\omega}$ span the Hermitian operators, $\mathcal{I}_{0}$ is uniquely determined; solving in the Pauli basis from $\mathcal{I}_{0}(\lvert 0\rangle\!\langle 0\rvert)=\lvert 0\rangle\!\langle 0\rvert$ and $\mathcal{I}_{0}(\rho_{\omega})=0$ for $\omega\neq 1$ gives $\mathcal{I}_{0}(\mathbb{1})=\mathcal{I}_{0}(\sigma_{z})=\lvert 0\rangle\!\langle 0\rvert$ and $\mathcal{I}_{0}(\sigma_{x})=\mathcal{I}_{0}(\sigma_{y})=-\lvert 0\rangle\!\langle 0\rvert$ , so for $\rho(r)=\tfrac{1}{2}(\mathbb{1}+r\cdot\vec{\tau})$ ,

\mathcal{I}_{0}\big(\rho(r)\big)=\tfrac{1}{2}\big(1+r_{z}-r_{x}-r_{y}\big)\lvert 0\rangle\!\langle 0\rvert.

At the unit Bloch vector $r=(1,1,-1)/\sqrt{3}$ the coefficient is $1-\sqrt{3}<0$ , so $\mathcal{I}_{0}(\rho(r))$ is not positive semidefinite. Hence $\mathcal{I}_{0}$ is not positive, and a fortiori not completely positive. ∎

Proposition 8.5 is not a technical obstruction to be worked around; it records that the mediator is not a physical device, and that this is deliberate. An instrument is an operation applied to the players’ systems by someone who does not know $\omega$ . The mediator does know $\omega$ , and splits the ensemble conditionally on it. A rule such as “recommend $0$ exactly when $\omega=1$ ” is therefore available to the mediator and unavailable to any channel, since no physical map can read $\omega$ off states it cannot distinguish.

This is what the omniscience in Definition 5.1 buys, and Theorem 8.3 is what makes it legitimate. The equilibria are exactly the behaviours realizable in an expansion whose state $\rho_{\omega}^{\ast}$ is prepared conditionally on $\omega$ , and preparing a state conditionally on a classical parameter is an ordinary physical operation. What is not physical is the attempt to compress that preparation into a single $\omega$ -independent operation on $Q$ , and Proposition 8.5 shows that no such compression exists.

9. Quantum individual sufficiency and the comparison theorem

We now build the order on quantum information structures and prove the comparison theorem. The classical template is Definition 3.5, whose two operative features are a transfer of decision rules that may depend on $\omega$ and a single local kernel per player depending on neither $\omega$ nor the other players’ data. One question has to be settled before the quantum definition can be written down, namely which class of maps the transfer should range over. The obvious candidate is the class of channels, since those are the physically implementable transformations and the single-agent theory of [11] is built from them. The following theorem shows that this candidate cannot work.

Theorem 9.1 (Transposition).

Let $Q=\big((\mathcal{H}_{i}),(\rho_{\omega})\big)$ be a quantum information structure and let $Q^{\mathsf{T}}:=\big((\mathcal{H}_{i}),(\rho_{\omega}^{\mathsf{T}})\big)$ , the transpose being taken in a fixed product basis of $\bigotimes_{i}\mathcal{H}_{i}$ . Then

(i)

$\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q)=\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q^{\mathsf{T}})$ for every basic game $G$ and every number of players, so $Q$ and $Q^{\mathsf{T}}$ are indistinguishable by the incentive ordering;
(ii)

there are structures $Q$ for which no channel carries the ensemble of $Q$ to that of $Q^{\mathsf{T}}$ , nor conversely.

Consequently no relation defined through completely positive maps can characterize the incentive ordering, even for a single player.

Proof.

(i) Transposition in a product basis commutes with every partial trace, that is, $\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[\xi^{\mathsf{T}}]=(\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}\xi)^{\mathsf{T}}$ : by linearity it suffices to check this on product operators $\xi_{i}\otimes\xi_{-i}$ , where both sides equal $\xi_{i}^{\mathsf{T}}\operatorname{Tr}[\xi_{-i}]$ .

Let $\{\rho_{\omega}^{a}\}$ be a decision rule for $Q$ . Transposition is linear and preserves positive semidefiniteness, so the operators $(\rho_{\omega}^{a})^{\mathsf{T}}$ are positive semidefinite and sum to $\rho_{\omega}^{\mathsf{T}}$ , making $\{(\rho_{\omega}^{a})^{\mathsf{T}}\}$ a decision rule for $Q^{\mathsf{T}}$ ; and it preserves traces, so the induced outcome is unchanged. By the commutation just proved and (3), the obedience operators of the transposed rule are $(X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}})^{\mathsf{T}}$ . Transposition preserves the Loewner order, since $Z\succeq 0$ if and only if $Z^{\mathsf{T}}\succeq 0$ , so by Theorem 6.2 the transposed rule is a quantum Bayes correlated equilibrium exactly when the original one is. The assignment is an involution, so the two outcome sets coincide.

(ii) Take $n=1$ , $\mathcal{H}=\mathbb{C}^{2}$ , $\Omega=\{1,2,3,4\}$ and

\rho_{1}=\lvert 0\rangle\!\langle 0\rvert,\quad\rho_{2}=\lvert 1\rangle\!\langle 1\rvert,\quad\rho_{3}=\lvert+\rangle\!\langle+\rvert,\quad\rho_{4}=\lvert{+}i\rangle\!\langle{+}i\rvert,\qquad\lvert{+}i\rangle:=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\lvert 0\rangle+i\lvert 1\rangle).

Let $e_{x},e_{y},e_{z}$ be the standard basis of $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ and $\vec{\tau}$ the vector of Pauli matrices, and write a qubit state as $\rho(r)=\tfrac{1}{2}(\mathbb{1}+r\cdot\vec{\tau})$ for $r\in\mathbb{R}^{3}$ with $\|r\|\leq 1$ . Every channel on a qubit acts on Bloch vectors as an affine map $r\mapsto\Theta r+c$ . The Bloch vectors of $\rho_{1},\dots,\rho_{4}$ are $e_{z},-e_{z},e_{x},e_{y}$ , whose affine hull is all of $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ , so $\Theta$ and $c$ are determined by the four images. Transposition is complex conjugation in the computational basis and acts as $(x,y,z)\mapsto(x,-y,z)$ , so the images are $e_{z},-e_{z},e_{x},-e_{y}$ . From the images of $\pm e_{z}$ we get $\Theta e_{z}+c=e_{z}$ and $-\Theta e_{z}+c=-e_{z}$ , whence $c=0$ and $\Theta e_{z}=e_{z}$ ; then $\Theta e_{x}=e_{x}$ and $\Theta e_{y}=-e_{y}$ , so $\Theta=\operatorname{diag}(1,-1,1)$ and the map is transposition itself. Its Choi operator is $\sum_{jk}\lvert j\rangle\!\langle k\rvert\otimes(\lvert j\rangle\!\langle k\rvert)^{\mathsf{T}}$ , the swap operator, whose spectrum is $\{-1,1,1,1\}$ ; it is not positive semidefinite, so transposition is not completely positive and no channel realizes the required action. Exchanging the roles of $Q$ and $Q^{\mathsf{T}}$ gives the other direction.

The final claim follows: by (i) any relation characterizing the incentive ordering must relate $Q$ and $Q^{\mathsf{T}}$ in both directions, and by (ii) no relation defined through channels does. ∎

The mechanism is that QBCE is defined with classical actions: for any POVM $\{M^{a}\}$ the family $\{(M^{a})^{\mathsf{T}}\}$ is again a POVM, and $\operatorname{Tr}[M^{a}\rho_{\omega}^{\mathsf{T}}]=\operatorname{Tr}[(M^{a})^{\mathsf{T}}\rho_{\omega}]$ , so no classical-action test can distinguish an ensemble from its transpose. Buscemi’s characterization of completely positive sufficiency [11] uses tests on $\rho_{\omega}$ entangled with a reference system, which are exactly the tests this framework excludes by construction (Section 4.3). The incentive ordering is therefore strictly coarser than the order of [11].

Transposition is nevertheless positive and trace preserving, and this is the property the definition should retain. We therefore quantize Definition 3.5 using positive trace-preserving maps rather than channels.

Definition 9.2 (Quantum individual sufficiency).

$Q\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}Q^{\prime}$ if there exist

(a)

positive trace-preserving maps $\mathcal{T}_{\omega}:\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})\to\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}^{\prime})$ with $\mathcal{T}_{\omega}(\rho_{\omega})=\rho^{\prime}_{\omega}$ for every $\omega$ , and
(b)

for each $i$ a positive trace-preserving map $\Phi_{i}:\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{i})\to\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{i}^{\prime})$ , independent of $\omega$ ,

such that the local compatibility identity

(6)

\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}\big[\mathcal{T}_{\omega}(\xi)\big]\;=\;\Phi_{i}\big(\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[\xi]\big)

holds for every $\omega$ , every $i$ , and every $\xi\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ supported on $\operatorname{supp}\rho_{\omega}$ . We write $Q\sqsupseteq_{\mathrm{inc}}Q^{\prime}$ for the incentive ordering, $\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q)\subseteq\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q^{\prime})$ for every basic game $G$ .

The $\omega$ -independence of $\Phi_{i}$ is the exact counterpart of BM’s requirement that $\Pr(t_{i}^{\prime}\mid t_{i},t_{-i},\omega)$ depend on neither $\omega$ nor $t_{-i}$ ; the $\omega$ -dependence permitted in $\mathcal{T}_{\omega}$ mirrors the fact that BM’s transfer [5, eq. (8)] is built from $\pi^{\ast}(\cdot\mid\omega)$ . Restricting (6) to $\operatorname{supp}\rho_{\omega}$ is the counterpart of BM’s “whenever the denominator is nonzero”, and is harmless because every decision rule satisfies $\rho_{\omega}^{a}\preceq\rho_{\omega}$ .

Proposition 9.3 ( $\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}$ and $\sqsupseteq_{\mathrm{inc}}$ are preorders).

Both relations are reflexive and transitive.

Proof.

$\sqsupseteq_{\mathrm{inc}}$ is a preorder because set inclusion is. For $\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}$ , reflexivity holds with $\mathcal{T}_{\omega}=\mathrm{id}$ and $\Phi_{i}=\mathrm{id}$ . For transitivity let $(\mathcal{T}_{\omega},\Phi_{i})$ witness $Q\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}Q^{\prime}$ and $(\mathcal{T}^{\prime}_{\omega},\Phi^{\prime}_{i})$ witness $Q^{\prime}\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}Q^{\prime\prime}$ , and set $\mathcal{T}^{\prime\prime}_{\omega}:=\mathcal{T}^{\prime}_{\omega}\circ\mathcal{T}_{\omega}$ , $\Phi^{\prime\prime}_{i}:=\Phi^{\prime}_{i}\circ\Phi_{i}$ . Compositions of positive maps are positive and compositions of trace-preserving maps are trace preserving; $\mathcal{T}^{\prime\prime}_{\omega}(\rho_{\omega})=\mathcal{T}^{\prime}_{\omega}(\rho^{\prime}_{\omega})=\rho^{\prime\prime}_{\omega}$ ; and each $\Phi^{\prime\prime}_{i}$ is $\omega$ -independent.

For (6) we need that $\mathcal{T}_{\omega}$ maps operators supported on $\operatorname{supp}\rho_{\omega}$ to operators supported on $\operatorname{supp}\rho^{\prime}_{\omega}$ . Let $\xi\succeq 0$ with $\operatorname{supp}\xi\subseteq\operatorname{supp}\rho_{\omega}$ ; then $\xi\preceq c\rho_{\omega}$ for some $c>0$ , so positivity and linearity give $\mathcal{T}_{\omega}(c\rho_{\omega}-\xi)\succeq 0$ , i.e. $0\preceq\mathcal{T}_{\omega}(\xi)\preceq c\rho^{\prime}_{\omega}$ , whence $\operatorname{supp}\mathcal{T}_{\omega}(\xi)\subseteq\operatorname{supp}\rho^{\prime}_{\omega}$ . A general Hermitian $\xi$ supported on $\operatorname{supp}\rho_{\omega}$ is a difference of two such positive operators, so the conclusion extends by linearity. Therefore

\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}\big[\mathcal{T}^{\prime\prime}_{\omega}(\xi)\big]=\Phi^{\prime}_{i}\big(\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[\mathcal{T}_{\omega}\xi]\big)=\Phi^{\prime}_{i}\big(\Phi_{i}(\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[\xi])\big)=\Phi^{\prime\prime}_{i}\big(\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[\xi]\big).

∎

Theorem 9.4 (Soundness: more information shrinks the equilibrium set).

If $Q\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}Q^{\prime}$ then $Q\sqsupseteq_{\mathrm{inc}}Q^{\prime}$ . That is, for every basic game $G$ on the common basic structure and every number of players,

\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q)\ \subseteq\ \mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q^{\prime}).

Proof.

Let $(\mathcal{T}_{\omega}),(\Phi_{i})$ witness $Q\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}Q^{\prime}$ , let $\nu\in\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q)$ be realized by a QBCE decision rule $\{\rho_{\omega}^{a}\}$ , and set $\rho_{\omega}^{\prime\,a}:=\mathcal{T}_{\omega}(\rho_{\omega}^{a})$ .

Step 1: a decision rule for $Q^{\prime}$ with outcome $\nu$ . Positivity gives $\rho_{\omega}^{\prime\,a}\succeq 0$ ; linearity gives $\sum_{a}\rho_{\omega}^{\prime\,a}=\mathcal{T}_{\omega}(\rho_{\omega})=\rho^{\prime}_{\omega}$ ; and trace preservation gives $\operatorname{Tr}[\rho_{\omega}^{\prime\,a}]=\operatorname{Tr}[\rho_{\omega}^{a}]$ , so the outcome is again $\nu$ .

Step 2: obedience operators transform by $\Phi_{i}$ . Since $\rho_{\omega}^{a}\preceq\rho_{\omega}$ , identity (6) applies with $\xi=\rho_{\omega}^{a}$ and yields $\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[\rho_{\omega}^{\prime\,a}]=\Phi_{i}\big(\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[\rho_{\omega}^{a}]\big)$ . Substituting into (3) and using linearity of $\Phi_{i}$ together with the fact that the coefficients $\psi(\omega)u_{i}(b_{i},a_{-i},\omega)$ are real scalars,

X_{i}^{\prime\,a_{i},b_{i}}=\sum_{\omega,a_{-i}}\psi(\omega)u_{i}(b_{i},a_{-i},\omega)\,\Phi_{i}\big(\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[\rho_{\omega}^{(a_{i},a_{-i})}]\big)=\Phi_{i}\big(X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}\big).

Step 3: obedience transfers. By Theorem 6.2, $X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}-X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}\succeq 0$ for all $i,a_{i},b_{i}$ . Since $\Phi_{i}$ is positive and linear, $X_{i}^{\prime\,a_{i},a_{i}}-X_{i}^{\prime\,a_{i},b_{i}}=\Phi_{i}\big(X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}-X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}\big)\succeq 0$ . By Theorem 6.2 again, $\{\rho_{\omega}^{\prime\,a}\}$ is a QBCE of $(G,Q^{\prime})$ with outcome $\nu$ , so $\nu\in\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q^{\prime})$ . ∎

It is worth reading the proof back to see which hypotheses it consumed, because the answer determines the shape of the theory.

Step 1 succeeded because realizability is free (Lemma 5.2). The coarser structure can still produce the outcome, since the mediator conditions on $\omega$ rather than on the degraded quantum data, so nothing is lost in the transfer that would have to be recovered. This is where an alternative definition would fail. If recommendations were instead generated by measuring $\rho_{\omega}$ , as under a belief-invariant reading, then a garbled structure would in general be unable to reproduce the outcome at all, because data processing strictly reduces distinguishability, and no soundness theorem of the present form would be available. The omniscience of the mediator is thus not a convenience but the hypothesis that makes the comparison possible.

Steps 2 and 3 consumed only two properties of the maps: linearity, which carries the transfer through the definition (3) of the obedience operators, and positivity, which preserves the Loewner order. Nothing else about $\mathcal{T}_{\omega}$ or $\Phi_{i}$ was used. Two consequences follow.

The first is that the hypothesis on $\mathcal{T}_{\omega}$ can be weakened. Step 1 applies it only to the operators $\rho_{\omega}^{a}$ , which lie in the order interval $[0,\rho_{\omega}]$ , so positivity on that interval suffices and Theorem 9.4 remains valid under the weaker requirement. The same weakening is not available for $\Phi_{i}$ , since Step 3 applies it to the differences $X_{i}^{a_{i},a_{i}}-X_{i}^{a_{i},b_{i}}$ , which are not confined to any such interval. The asymmetry is structural: $\mathcal{T}_{\omega}$ acts on the mediator’s splitting of a fixed state, whereas $\Phi_{i}$ acts on incentive differences.

The second concerns complete positivity, which the proof also never used. One may therefore strengthen the hypothesis and require the maps of Definition 9.2 to be channels. Call the resulting relation $\succeq_{\mathrm{CP}}$ . Since every channel is a positive trace-preserving map, $\succeq_{\mathrm{CP}}\subseteq\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}$ , so Theorem 9.4 applies to it verbatim; and every witness constructed in this paper happens to be completely positive, so nothing proved here would be lost by adopting it. What would be lost is the converse. By Theorem 9.1 the incentive ordering identifies an ensemble with its transpose, and no channel relates the two, so $\succeq_{\mathrm{CP}}$ cannot characterize the incentive ordering. This is why Definition 9.2 is stated with positive maps and not with channels, which are completely positive trace-preserving maps.

9.1. The order is inhabited

Definition 9.5 (Three garbling relations).

Let $Q,Q^{\prime}$ be quantum information structures.

(a)

$Q\succeq_{\mathrm{loc}}Q^{\prime}$ (local garbling) if there are channels $\Lambda_{i}:\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{i})\to\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{i}^{\prime})$ with $\rho^{\prime}_{\omega}=\big(\bigotimes_{i}\Lambda_{i}\big)(\rho_{\omega})$ for all $\omega$ .
(b)

$Q\succeq_{\mathrm{LOSR}}Q^{\prime}$ (shared randomness) if $\mathcal{H}_{i}^{\prime}=\mathcal{H}_{i}^{\prime\prime}\otimes\mathbb{C}^{\mathcal{L}}$ and there are $p\in\Delta(\mathcal{L})$ and channels $\Lambda_{i}^{\lambda}$ with $\rho^{\prime}_{\omega}=\sum_{\lambda}p(\lambda)\big(\bigotimes_{i}\Lambda_{i}^{\lambda}\big)(\rho_{\omega})\otimes\big(\bigotimes_{i}\lvert\lambda\rangle\!\langle\lambda\rvert\big)$ .
(c)

$Q\succeq_{\mathrm{LOSE}}Q^{\prime}$ (shared entanglement) if there are auxiliary spaces $K_{i}$ , a state $\tau$ on $\bigotimes_{i}K_{i}$ independent of $\omega$ , and channels $\Lambda_{i}:\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{i}\otimes K_{i})\to\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}_{i}^{\prime})$ with $\rho^{\prime}_{\omega}=\big(\bigotimes_{i}\Lambda_{i}\big)(\rho_{\omega}\otimes\tau)$ .

Proposition 9.6 (Instances).

Each of $\succeq_{\mathrm{loc}}$ , $\succeq_{\mathrm{LOSR}}$ and $\succeq_{\mathrm{LOSE}}$ implies $\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}$ , with $\omega$ -independent witnesses $\mathcal{T}_{\omega}=T$ and

\text{(a) }\mathcal{T}=\bigotimes_{i}\Lambda_{i},\ \Phi_{i}=\Lambda_{i};\quad\text{(b) }\Phi_{i}(Z)=\sum_{\lambda}p(\lambda)\Lambda_{i}^{\lambda}(Z)\otimes\lvert\lambda\rangle\!\langle\lambda\rvert;\quad\text{(c) }\Phi_{i}(Z)=\Lambda_{i}(Z\otimes\tau_{i}),

where $\tau_{i}:=\operatorname{Tr}_{K_{-i}}\tau$ . In each case $\Phi_{i}$ is a channel.

Proof.

We use the identity

(7)

\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}\Big[\Big(\bigotimes_{j}\Gamma_{j}\Big)(\xi)\Big]=\Gamma_{i}\big(\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[\xi]\big)

for channels $\Gamma_{j}$ acting on the respective factors: by linearity it suffices to check it on product operators $\xi=\xi_{i}\otimes\xi_{-i}$ , where the left side is $\Gamma_{i}(\xi_{i})\operatorname{Tr}[\Gamma_{-i}(\xi_{-i})]=\Gamma_{i}(\xi_{i})\operatorname{Tr}[\xi_{-i}]$ because $\Gamma_{-i}:=\bigotimes_{j\neq i}\Gamma_{j}$ is trace preserving.

(a) Take $\mathcal{T}=\bigotimes_{i}\Lambda_{i}$ ; then (6) is (7).

(b) Set $\mathcal{T}(\xi):=\sum_{\lambda}p(\lambda)\big(\bigotimes_{i}\Lambda_{i}^{\lambda}\big)(\xi)\otimes\big(\bigotimes_{i}\lvert\lambda\rangle\!\langle\lambda\rvert\big)$ , completely positive as a convex combination of completely positive maps and trace preserving since each summand contributes $p(\lambda)\operatorname{Tr}\xi$ . Tracing out the factors $j\neq i$ and applying (7) within each $\lambda$ -term gives $\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[\mathcal{T}(\xi)]=\sum_{\lambda}p(\lambda)\Lambda_{i}^{\lambda}(\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[\xi])\otimes\lvert\lambda\rangle\!\langle\lambda\rvert$ , and $\operatorname{Tr}\Phi_{i}(Z)=\sum_{\lambda}p(\lambda)\operatorname{Tr}Z=\operatorname{Tr}Z$ .

(c) Set $\mathcal{T}(\xi):=\big(\bigotimes_{i}\Lambda_{i}\big)(\xi\otimes\tau)$ , a channel. Player $j$ holds $\mathcal{H}_{j}\otimes K_{j}$ , so by (7) $\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[\mathcal{T}(\xi)]=\Lambda_{i}\big(\operatorname{Tr}_{(\mathcal{H}\otimes K)_{-i}}[\xi\otimes\tau]\big)$ ; since $\xi$ lives on $\mathcal{H}$ and $\tau$ on $K$ , the partial trace factorizes as $\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[\xi]\otimes\tau_{i}$ , giving $\Phi_{i}$ as displayed, with $\operatorname{Tr}\Phi_{i}(Z)=\operatorname{Tr}[Z]\operatorname{Tr}[\tau_{i}]=\operatorname{Tr}Z$ . ∎

Proposition 9.7 (Classical individual sufficiency is an instance).

If $S\succeq S^{\prime}$ in the sense of Definition 3.5, then $\iota(S)\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}\iota(S^{\prime})$ .

Proof.

Let $\pi^{\ast}$ witness $S\succeq S^{\prime}$ and let $\varphi_{i}$ satisfy (1). For each $\omega$ define the Markov kernel $k_{\omega}(t^{\prime}\mid t):=\pi^{\ast}(t,t^{\prime}\mid\omega)/\pi(t\mid\omega)$ when $\pi(t\mid\omega)>0$ , and arbitrarily otherwise; let $\mathcal{T}_{\omega}$ be the induced channel on diagonal operators, extended to $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ by first pinching in the product basis. Then $\mathcal{T}_{\omega}(\rho_{\omega})=\sum_{t^{\prime}}\big(\sum_{t}\pi(t\mid\omega)k_{\omega}(t^{\prime}\mid t)\big)\lvert t^{\prime}\rangle\!\langle t^{\prime}\rvert=\sum_{t^{\prime}}\pi^{\prime}(t^{\prime}\mid\omega)\lvert t^{\prime}\rangle\!\langle t^{\prime}\rvert=\rho^{\prime}_{\omega}$ , using that $\pi^{\ast}$ has marginal $\pi^{\prime}$ .

Let $\Phi_{i}$ be the channel induced in the same way by $\varphi_{i}$ ; it is trace preserving because $\sum_{t_{i}^{\prime}}\varphi_{i}(t_{i}^{\prime}\mid t_{i})=1$ , positive because $\varphi_{i}\geq 0$ , and independent of $\omega$ . Let $\xi$ be supported on $\operatorname{supp}\rho_{\omega}$ ; after pinching we may write $\xi=\sum_{t}c_{t}\lvert t\rangle\!\langle t\rvert$ with $c_{t}=0$ unless $\pi(t\mid\omega)>0$ . For such $t$ , equation (1) gives $\sum_{t_{-i}^{\prime}}k_{\omega}(t^{\prime}\mid t)=\varphi_{i}(t_{i}^{\prime}\mid t_{i})$ , which depends on neither $t_{-i}$ nor $\omega$ ; hence

\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}\big[\mathcal{T}_{\omega}(\xi)\big]=\sum_{t_{i}^{\prime}}\Big(\sum_{t_{i}}\Big(\sum_{t_{-i}}c_{t}\Big)\varphi_{i}(t_{i}^{\prime}\mid t_{i})\Big)\lvert t_{i}^{\prime}\rangle\!\langle t_{i}^{\prime}\rvert=\Phi_{i}\big(\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}[\xi]\big).

∎

Corollary 9.8 (Consistency with the classical and single-agent theories).

(i)

If $S\succeq S^{\prime}$ then
$\mathrm{BCE}(G,S)\subseteq\mathrm{BCE}(G,S^{\prime})$ for every basic game $G$ ; the soundness half of Theorem 3.6 is recovered.
(ii)

For $n=1$ , if $Q$ is Buscemi sufficient for $Q^{\prime}$ , that is, if there is a channel $\Lambda$ with $\rho^{\prime}_{\omega}=\Lambda(\rho_{\omega})$ for all $\omega$ , then $\mathrm{QBCE}(D,Q)\subseteq\mathrm{QBCE}(D,Q^{\prime})$ for every decision problem $D$ .

Proof.

(i) By Proposition 9.7, $\iota(S)\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}\iota(S^{\prime})$ ; by Theorem 9.4, $\mathrm{QBCE}(G,\iota(S))\subseteq\mathrm{QBCE}(G,\iota(S^{\prime}))$ ; by Theorem 7.1 these sets are $\mathrm{BCE}(G,S)$ and $\mathrm{BCE}(G,S^{\prime})$ . (ii) Buscemi sufficiency is $Q\succeq_{\mathrm{loc}}Q^{\prime}$ for $n=1$ ; apply Proposition 9.6(a) and Theorem 9.4. ∎

Proposition 9.9 (Information does not move the top of the equilibrium set).

Let $n=1$ , so that the basic game $G$ reduces to a single-agent decision problem $D$ . Then for every quantum information structure $Q,$ the maximum payoff over the quantum Bayes correlated equilibrium set satisfies

\max_{\nu\in\mathrm{QBCE}(D,Q)}\ \sum_{\omega,a}u(a,\omega)\,\nu(\omega,a)\;=\;\sum_{\omega}\psi(\omega)\max_{a\in A}u(a,\omega)

That is, the maximum attainable payoff equals the full-information optimum and does not depend on $Q$ .

Proof.

No outcome can exceed the stated right-hand side, since

(8)

\sum_{\omega,a}u(a,\omega)\nu(\omega,a)\leq\sum_{\omega}\big(\max_{a}u(a,\omega)\big)\sum_{a}\nu(\omega,a)=\sum_{\omega}\psi(\omega)\max_{a}u(a,\omega).

For attainment, fix a selector $a^{\ast}(\omega)\in\arg\max_{a}u(a,\omega)$ and take the decision rule $\rho_{\omega}^{a}:=\mathbb{1}[a=a^{\ast}(\omega)]\,\rho_{\omega}$ , which is a decision rule by Lemma 5.2 and has outcome $\nu(\omega,a)=\psi(\omega)\mathbb{1}[a=a^{\ast}(\omega)]$ . With one player the sum over $a_{-i}$ in (3) is empty, so $X^{a,b}=\sum_{\omega}\psi(\omega)u(b,\omega)\mathbb{1}[a=a^{\ast}(\omega)]\rho_{\omega}$ and

X^{a,a}-X^{a,b}=\sum_{\omega\,:\,a^{\ast}(\omega)=a}\psi(\omega)\big[u(a,\omega)-u(b,\omega)\big]\rho_{\omega}.

Each summand is a nonnegative multiple of the positive semidefinite operator $\rho_{\omega}$ , because $a=a^{\ast}(\omega)$ maximizes $u(\cdot,\omega)$ on the index set of the sum. Hence the difference is positive semidefinite and the rule is a quantum Bayes correlated equilibrium by Theorem 6.2. Its payoff is $\sum_{\omega}\psi(\omega)u(a^{\ast}(\omega),\omega)$ , the right-hand side. ∎

Information therefore does not move the top of the equilibrium set; it deletes elements elsewhere. With several players and a welfare objective the situation differs, because the welfare-maximizing profile need not be obedient, and Section 10 exhibits that difference.

9.2. Completeness

Theorem 9.4 states that $\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}$ is contained in $\sqsupseteq_{\mathrm{inc}}$ as a relation on quantum information structures. In the classical theory the two corresponding relations are equal [5, Thm. 2]. We establish equality here on two classes of pairs.

Theorem 9.10 (Classical completeness).

Let $Q,Q^{\prime}$ have ensembles simultaneously diagonalizable in product bases, i.e. $Q=(\bigotimes_{i}U_{i})\iota(S)(\bigotimes_{i}U_{i})^{\dagger}$ and $Q^{\prime}=(\bigotimes_{i}U_{i}^{\prime})\iota(S^{\prime})(\bigotimes_{i}U_{i}^{\prime})^{\dagger}$ for classical structures $S,S^{\prime}$ and local unitaries. Then

Q\sqsupseteq_{\mathrm{inc}}Q^{\prime}\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad Q\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}Q^{\prime}\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad S\succeq S^{\prime},

so the two relations agree on such pairs at every $n$ .

Proof.

Conjugation by a profile of local unitaries is a local garbling in both directions (Definition 9.5(a) with $\Lambda_{i}=U_{i}\cdot U_{i}^{\dagger}$ ), so by Proposition 9.6 and Theorem 9.4 it preserves both $\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}$ -comparability and QBCE outcome sets; we may therefore assume $Q=\iota(S)$ and $Q^{\prime}=\iota(S^{\prime})$ . Now $S\succeq S^{\prime}\Rightarrow Q\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}Q^{\prime}$ is Proposition 9.7 and $Q\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}Q^{\prime}\Rightarrow Q\sqsupseteq_{\mathrm{inc}}Q^{\prime}$ is Theorem 9.4. Conversely, if $Q\sqsupseteq_{\mathrm{inc}}Q^{\prime}$ then by Theorem 7.1 $\mathrm{BCE}(G,S)\subseteq\mathrm{BCE}(G,S^{\prime})$ for every basic game $G$ , i.e. $S$ is more incentive constrained than $S^{\prime}$ , so $S\succeq S^{\prime}$ by Theorem 3.6. ∎

What is left unresolved therefore concerns only ensembles that are not simultaneously diagonalizable in a product basis. Note that the reduction to BM’s theorem is legitimate only because the embedding $\iota$ is exact (Theorem 7.1); an inclusion would not suffice.

Theorem 9.11 (Completeness at the bottom of the order).

Let $Q_{\emptyset}$ denote the trivial structure, $\mathcal{H}_{i}=\mathbb{C}$ and $\rho_{\omega}=1$ for all $\omega$ . Then for every quantum information structure $Q$ ,

Q\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}Q_{\emptyset}\iff Q\sqsupseteq_{\mathrm{inc}}Q_{\emptyset}\qquad(\text{both always hold}),

and

Q_{\emptyset}\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}Q\iff Q_{\emptyset}\sqsupseteq_{\mathrm{inc}}Q\iff Q\ \text{is locally flat}.

In particular the two relations agree whenever one of the two structures is $Q_{\emptyset}$ .

Proof.

$Q\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}Q_{\emptyset}$ always, via the replacer $\mathcal{T}_{\omega}(\xi):=\operatorname{Tr}[\xi]$ and $\Phi_{i}(X):=\operatorname{Tr}[X]$ , which are positive and trace preserving and satisfy (6); $Q\sqsupseteq_{\mathrm{inc}}Q_{\emptyset}$ then follows from Theorem 9.4, and also directly from $\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q)\subseteq\mathrm{QBCE}_{\mathrm{pp}}(G,Q)=\mathrm{BCE}(G,S_{\emptyset})=\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q_{\emptyset})$ , the last equality by Theorem 7.1 applied to $S_{\emptyset}$ .

For the second chain, note first that $\mathcal{H}=\mathbb{C}$ for $Q_{\emptyset}$ , so $\operatorname{Tr}_{-i}$ is the identity on $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{C})=\mathbb{C}$ and any $\mathcal{T}_{\omega}$ with $\mathcal{T}_{\omega}(1)=\rho^{\prime}_{\omega}$ acts by $\mathcal{T}_{\omega}(\xi)=\xi\rho^{\prime}_{\omega}$ . Condition (6) then reads $\xi\,\rho^{\prime}_{i,\omega}=\Phi_{i}(\xi)=\xi\,\Phi_{i}(1)$ for all scalars $\xi$ , i.e. $\rho^{\prime}_{i,\omega}=\Phi_{i}(1)$ for every $\omega$ . Such an $\omega$ -independent $\Phi_{i}$ exists if and only if $\rho^{\prime}_{i,\omega}$ does not depend on $\omega$ , that is, if and only if $Q$ is locally flat; and in that case $\Phi_{i}(\xi):=\xi\rho^{\prime}_{i}$ is positive and trace preserving. Hence $Q_{\emptyset}\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}Q$ if and only if $Q$ is locally flat.

Finally $Q_{\emptyset}\sqsupseteq_{\mathrm{inc}}Q$ means $\mathrm{BCE}(G,S_{\emptyset})\subseteq\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q)$ for every $G$ ; combined with the reverse inclusion, which always holds, this says $\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q)=\mathrm{BCE}(G,S_{\emptyset})$ for every $G$ , which by Theorem 7.4 is local flatness. The three conditions therefore agree. ∎

Theorems 9.10 and 9.11 therefore establish equality of $\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}$ and $\sqsupseteq_{\mathrm{inc}}$ on two natural classes of pairs: those that are simultaneously diagonalizable in a product basis, and those in which one structure is least informative.

10. Comparing information: a worked example

Having established the foundations of the solution concept and the comparison theorem, we close by computing. The example exhibits a totally ordered family of quantum information structures, verifies the comparative static of Theorem 9.4 on it, and shows what the ordering does to welfare. Every quantity reported is the value of a semidefinite program in the sense of Corollary 6.3.

10.1. The basic game

We use the binary investment game of [5, Appendix], with their parameters, so that the quantum computation can be read against the classical one. There are two players, each choosing $a_{i}\in\{I,N\}$ (invest or not), and two states $\Omega=\{\omega_{B},\omega_{G}\}$ with $\psi(\omega_{G})=\tfrac{1}{3}$ . Payoffs to player $1$ are

\begin{array}[]{c|cc}\omega_{B}&I&N\\ \hline\cr I&z-1+y_{B}&-1\\ N&z&0\end{array}\qquad\qquad\begin{array}[]{c|cc}\omega_{G}&I&N\\ \hline\cr I&z+1+y_{G}&1\\ N&z&0\end{array}

with the first entry indexed by player $1$ ’s action, and symmetrically for player $2$ . We take $z=2$ , $y_{G}=0$ , $y_{B}=-\tfrac{1}{6}$ . The externality $z$ is large enough that joint investment maximizes welfare in both states: the first-best is $a=(I,I)$ always, with average payoff per player $\tfrac{2}{3}\cdot\tfrac{5}{6}+\tfrac{1}{3}\cdot 3=\tfrac{14}{9}\approx 1.5556$ .

10.2. A chain of quantum information structures

Each player holds one qubit. Let

\eta_{\omega_{B}}:=\lvert 0\rangle\!\langle 0\rvert,\qquad\eta_{\omega_{G}}:=\lvert+\rangle\!\langle+\rvert,

two non-commuting states, and let $\Lambda_{\gamma}$ be the qubit depolarizing channel $\Lambda_{\gamma}(\rho)=\gamma\rho+(1-\gamma)\tfrac{1}{2}\mathbb{1}$ for $\gamma\in[0,1]$ . Define the family

Q_{\gamma}:\qquad\rho^{(\gamma)}_{\omega}:=\Lambda_{\gamma}(\eta_{\omega})\otimes\Lambda_{\gamma}(\eta_{\omega}),\qquad\omega\in\{\omega_{B},\omega_{G}\},

so that the players hold conditionally independent noisy quantum samples of the state of nature. At $\gamma=1$ the structure is the pair of pure non-commuting states; at $\gamma=0$ both $\rho^{(0)}_{\omega}$ equal $\tfrac{1}{4}\mathbb{1}$ and the structure carries no information.

Proposition 10.1.

$Q_{\gamma}\succeq_{\mathrm{loc}}Q_{\gamma^{\prime}}$ , and hence $Q_{\gamma}\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}Q_{\gamma^{\prime}}$ and $Q_{\gamma}\sqsupseteq_{\mathrm{inc}}Q_{\gamma^{\prime}}$ , whenever $1\geq\gamma\geq\gamma^{\prime}\geq 0$ .

Proof.

A direct computation gives $\Lambda_{s}\circ\Lambda_{s^{\prime}}=\Lambda_{ss^{\prime}}$ : $\Lambda_{s}(\Lambda_{s^{\prime}}(\rho))=s\big(s^{\prime}\rho+(1-s^{\prime})\tfrac{1}{2}\mathbb{1}\big)+(1-s)\tfrac{1}{2}\mathbb{1}=ss^{\prime}\rho+(1-ss^{\prime})\tfrac{1}{2}\mathbb{1}$ . For $\gamma^{\prime}\leq\gamma$ put $s:=\gamma^{\prime}/\gamma\in[0,1]$ if $\gamma>0$ (and $s$ arbitrary if $\gamma=0$ , in which case $\gamma^{\prime}=0$ and the claim is trivial); then $\Lambda_{s}\circ\Lambda_{\gamma}=\Lambda_{\gamma^{\prime}}$ , so applying the channel $\Lambda_{s}$ to each qubit carries $\rho^{(\gamma)}_{\omega}$ to $\rho^{(\gamma^{\prime})}_{\omega}$ for every $\omega$ . This is a local garbling in the sense of Definition 9.5(a); apply Proposition 9.6(a) and Theorem 9.4. ∎

By Theorem 9.4 the sets $\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q_{\gamma})$ are therefore nested increasing as $\gamma$ decreases: more information means fewer equilibrium outcomes.

10.3. The computation

By Corollary 6.3, maximizing average welfare

(9)

\sum_{\omega,a}\tfrac{1}{2}\big(u_{1}(a,\omega)+u_{2}(a,\omega)\big)\nu(\omega,a)

over $\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q_{\gamma})$ is a semidefinite program in the variables $\{\rho_{\omega}^{a}\}$ : eight $4\times 4$ Hermitian blocks, two trace-normalization equalities, and eight $2\times 2$ Loewner constraints from Theorem 6.2, four per player. Solving it gives the curve in Figure 1, computed on a grid of $41$ values of $\gamma$ .

Refer to caption — Figure 1. Maximum average welfare per player over $\mathrm{QBCE}(G,Q_{\gamma})$ along the depolarizing chain of Proposition 10.1, each marker being the optimal value of a semidefinite program. Informativeness increases with $\gamma$ , 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 lower best case. It equals $4/3$ , the maximum over $\mathrm{BCE}(G,S_{\emptyset})$ , for $\gamma\lesssim 0.33$ , where the obedience constraints are slack, and falls to $1$ at $\gamma=1$ . The first-best value $14/9$ is never attained, because joint investment in the bad state is not obedient

Three features are worth recording.

The comparative static. The maximum is non-increasing in $\gamma$ , as Proposition 10.1 and Theorem 9.4 require: a larger $\gamma$ means a more informative structure, hence a smaller QBCE set, hence a smaller maximum. This is the quantum form of the comparative static that Bergemann and Morris obtain for the same basic game. Their Figure 4 displays it as a nesting of BCE outcome sets in the plane of state-conditional investment probabilities, drawn for three accuracies of the classical signal, and they conclude from that nesting that the best achievable BCE welfare is weakly lower with more information, and strictly lower in their example [5, Appendix]. Figure 1 plots the welfare conclusion directly rather than the nesting from which it follows. The direction is the one Theorem 9.4 forces: more information adds obedience constraints and adds no feasibility, since realizability is free by Lemma 5.2, so the equilibrium set can only shrink and its best element can only fall.

Consistency at the endpoints. At $\gamma=0$ the value $\tfrac{4}{3}$ coincides with the maximum of welfare over $\mathrm{BCE}(G,S_{\emptyset})$ , computed separately as a linear program; this is the value predicted by Theorem 7.2, since an uninformative structure imposes only the null-structure constraints. At $\gamma=1$ the value falls to $1$ . The first-best $\tfrac{14}{9}$ is never attained, because joint investment in the bad state is not obedient. This is the wedge that makes the multi-player comparative static nontrivial, and its absence for a single agent is Proposition 9.9.

A threshold. The maximum is constant at $\tfrac{4}{3}$ for $\gamma\lesssim 0.33$ and strictly decreasing thereafter. Below the threshold the quantum signals are too noisy for the additional obedience constraints to bind at the welfare-maximizing outcome, even though $Q_{\gamma}$ is strictly more informative than $Q_{0}$ in the order $\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}$ . Strict informativeness therefore need not translate into a strict welfare reduction: the ordering is about set inclusion, and inclusions can be strict in directions that a particular scalar objective does not detect.

11. Concluding remarks

The transition from classical to quantum information structures in games requires a fundamental shift in how we conceptualize correlated advice. By abandoning the belief-invariant assumptions prevalent in prior quantum game theory and allowing the mediator to observe the state of nature, we construct a quantum analogue to the Bergemann–Morris framework that is both mathematically rigorous and conceptually conservative. The engine of this framework is the realization that quantum obedience translates exactly into a Loewner domination between operators on a single player’s subsystem. From this single operator inequality, the core geometry of the theory follows: the quantum Bayes correlated equilibrium set is a convex, compact spectrahedron, and optimal information design reduces naturally to semidefinite programming.

This formulation successfully recovers the classical theory without distortion. An omniscient, coherent mediator generates no spurious outcomes when restricted to classical structures, proving that the quantum extension is exact. Furthermore, our analysis reveals a stark dichotomy in how quantum resources can be accessed in games. The ”advice model”—where players extract classical signals from quantum states before equilibrium play—is entirely degenerate, carrying no incentive content beyond the null structure. The comparative power of a quantum information structure instead lies strictly in the local quantum deviations it permits. Under direct access, quantum individual sufficiency acts as a robust preorder encompassing local garblings, shared randomness, and shared entanglement, confirming the central comparative static: more quantum information monotonically shrinks the set of obedient outcomes.

We establish the exact equivalence of quantum individual sufficiency and the incentive ordering for two fundamental regimes. We prove that these relations coincide precisely for information structures that are simultaneously diagonalizable in a product basis, cleanly recovering the classical Bergemann–Morris equivalence. We further prove that this exact equivalence holds universally for any comparison involving the least informative structure. For all other quantum structures, we establish the rigorous soundness inclusion: quantum individual sufficiency guarantees the incentive ordering across all basic games and any number of players. By resolving the exact bounds of the classical embedding and proving the general soundness of the quantum expansion, this framework places the comparison of quantum information structures on firm operational foundations.

References

[1] C. ,Taksu and I. ,Azhar (2008) Bayesian nash equilibria and bell inequalities. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 77 (2), pp. 024801. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.1.
[2] A. A. Abbott, M. Mhalla, and P. Pocreau (2024) Improving social welfare in non-cooperative games with different types of quantum resources. Quantum 8, pp. 1376. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §2.1, §4.1, §5.2.
[3] V. Auletta, D. Ferraioli, A. Rai, G. Scarpa, and A. Winter (2021) Belief-invariant and quantum equilibria in games of incomplete information. Theoretical Computer Science 895, pp. 151–177. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §2.1, §4.1, §4.2.
[4] R. J. Aumann (1987) Correlated equilibrium as an expression of Bayesian rationality. Econometrica 55 (1), pp. 1–18. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.1.
[5] D. Bergemann and S. Morris (2016) Bayes correlated equilibrium and the comparison of information structures in games. Theoretical Economics 11 (2), pp. 487–522. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §1, §1, §10.1, §10.3, §2.1, Definition 3.3, Theorem 3.4, Definition 3.5, Theorem 3.6, §3, §3, §3, §3, §3, §4.3, §7.1, §9.2, §9.
[6] D. Bergemann and S. Morris (2016) Information design, Bayesian persuasion, and Bayes correlated equilibrium. American Economic Review 106 (5), pp. 586–591. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §2.1.
[7] D. Bergemann and S. Morris (2019) Information design: a unified perspective. Journal of Economic Literature 57 (1), pp. 44–95. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §2.1.
[8] D. Blackwell (1953) Equivalent comparisons of experiments. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 24 (2), pp. 265–272. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.
[9] A. Brandenburger and P. La Mura (2016) Team decision problems with classical and quantum signals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 374 (2058), pp. 20150096. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.1.
[10] N. Brunner and N. Linden (2013) Connection between Bell nonlocality and Bayesian game theory. Nature Communications 4, pp. 2057. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.1, §4.1, §4.1.
[11] F. Buscemi (2012) Comparison of quantum statistical models: equivalent conditions for sufficiency. Communications in Mathematical Physics 310 (3), pp. 625–647. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §2.1, §4.2, §9, §9.
[12] J. Eisert, M. Wilkens, and M. Lewenstein (1999) Quantum games and quantum strategies. Physical Review Letters 83 (15), pp. 3077–3080. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §2.1, §4.3.
[13] A. Fine (1982) Joint distributions, quantum correlations, and commuting observables. Journal of Mathematical Physics 23 (7), pp. 1306–1310. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.1.
[14] F. Forges (1993) Five legitimate definitions of correlated equilibrium in games with incomplete information. Theory and Decision 35 (3), pp. 277–310. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.1, §3.
[15] F. Forges (2006) Correlated equilibrium in games with incomplete information revisited. Theory and Decision 61 (4), pp. 329–344. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.1, §3.
[16] O. Gossner (2000) Comparison of information structures. Games and Economic Behavior 30 (1), pp. 44–63. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.1, §3.
[17] B. Groisman, M. Mc Gettrick, M. Mhalla, and M. Pawłowski (2020) How quantum information can improve social welfare. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory 1 (2), pp. 445–453. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §2.1.
[18] C. W. Helstrom (1976) Quantum detection and estimation theory. Academic Press, New York. Cited by: §2.1.
[19] A. S. Holevo (1973) Statistical decision theory for quantum systems. Journal of Multivariate Analysis 3 (4), pp. 337–394. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.1.
[20] E. Kamenica and M. Gentzkow (2011) Bayesian persuasion. American Economic Review 101 (6), pp. 2590–2615. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §2.1.
[21] F. S. Khan, N. Solmeyer, R. Balu, and T. S. Humble (2018) Quantum games: a review of the history, current state, and interpretation. Quantum Information Processing 17 (11), pp. 309. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §2.1, §4.3.
[22] P. La Mura (2005) Correlated equilibria of classical strategic games with quantum signals. International Journal of Quantum Information 3 (1), pp. 183–188. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §2.1.
[23] E. Lehrer, D. Rosenberg, and E. Shmaya (2010) Signaling and mediation in games with common interests. Games and Economic Behavior 68 (2), pp. 670–682. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.1.
[24] E. Lehrer, D. Rosenberg, and E. Shmaya (2013) Garbling of signals and outcome equivalence. Games and Economic Behavior 81, pp. 179–191. External Links: ISSN 0899-8256, Document Cited by: §2.1.
[25] Q. Liu (2015) Correlation and common priors in games with incomplete information. Journal of Economic Theory 157, pp. 49–75. External Links: ISSN 0022-0531, Document Cited by: §2.1, §3, §4.2.
[26] L. Marinatto and T. Weber (2000) A quantum approach to static games of complete information. Physics Letters A 272 (5-6), pp. 291–303. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §2.1.
[27] D. A. Meyer (1999) Quantum strategies. Physical Review Letters 82 (5), pp. 1052–1055. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §2.1.
[28] A. Pappa, N. Kumar, T. Lawson, M. Santha, S. Zhang, E. Diamanti, and I. Kerenidis (2015) Nonlocality and conflicting interest games. Physical Review Letters 114 (2), pp. 020401. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §2.1.
[29] D. Petz (1986) Sufficient subalgebras and the relative entropy of states of a von Neumann algebra. Communications in Mathematical Physics 105 (1), pp. 123–131. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §2.1.
[30] A. Rai and G. Paul (2017) Strong quantum solutions in conflicting-interest Bayesian games. Physical Review A 96 (4), pp. 042340. External Links: Document Cited by: §1.1, §2.1.
[31] E. Shmaya (2005) Comparison of information structures and completely positive maps. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 38 (44), pp. 9717–9727. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §2.1.
[32] S. J. van Enk and R. Pike (2002) Classical rules in quantum games. Physical Review A 66 (2), pp. 024306. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.1.
[33] X. Wang and M. M. Wilde (2019) Resource theory of asymmetric distinguishability. Physical Review Research 1 (3), pp. 033170. External Links: Document Cited by: §1, §2.1.
[34] H. P. Yuen, R. S. Kennedy, and M. Lax (1975) Optimum testing of multiple hypotheses in quantum detection theory. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 21 (2), pp. 125–134. External Links: Document Cited by: §2.1.
[35] S. Zhang (2012) Quantum strategic game theory. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS ’12, New York, NY, USA, pp. 39–59. External Links: ISBN 9781450311151, Document Cited by: §1.1, §2.1.

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

Abstract.

Key words and phrases:

2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:

1. Introduction

1.1. Why the existing quantum literature does not already answer this

1.2. The framework and what it yields

1.3. Organization

2. Related work and contributions

2.1. Review of the related literature

Quantum single-agent sufficiency.

Quantization protocols and their critics.

Bayesian quantum games and Bell inequalities.

Quantum correlated and belief-invariant equilibria.

Classical information design and orderings.

2.2. Summary of contributions

3. Classical preliminaries

Definition 3.1 (Basic game).

Definition 3.2 (Classical information structure).

Definition 3.3 (Obedience and BCE, [5]).

Theorem 3.4 ([5, Thm. 1]).

Definition 3.5 (Individual sufficiency, [5, Def. 6]).

Theorem 3.6 ([5, Thm. 2]).

4. Quantum information structures

Definition 4.1 (Quantum information structure).

Example 4.2 (Embedding of classical structures).

4.1. State correlation

4.2. No-signalling is not at issue

4.3. Classical actions and the scope of the linearity hypothesis

5. Quantum Bayes correlated equilibrium

5.1. Decision rules

Definition 5.1 (Quantum decision rule).

Lemma 5.2 (Realizability is unconstrained).

Proof.

5.2. Obedience

Definition 5.3 (Obedience operator).

Definition 5.4 (QBCE).

Definition 5.5 (Advice model).

6. The Loewner characterization

Definition 6.1 (Loewner order).

Theorem 6.2 (Obedience is Loewner domination).

Proof.

Corollary 6.3 (QBCE is a spectrahedron).

Proof.

Proposition 6.4 (QBCE is nonempty).

Proof.

Remark 6.5 (Computation).

7. Recovery of the classical theory, and the advice model

Theorem 7.1 (Exact classical recovery).

Proof.

Theorem 7.2 (The advice model is degenerate).

Proof.

Example 7.3 (Helstrom separation).

Proof.

7.1. When the quantum structure carries no incentive content

Theorem 7.4 (Incentive-trivial structures).

Proof.

8. Foundations of the solution concept

Definition 8.1 (Expansion, split strategies).

Lemma 8.2 (Deviations collapse on a block-diagonal expansion).

Proof.

Theorem 8.3 (Quantum analogue of BM Theorem 1).

Proof.

Corollary 8.4 (Arbitrary deviations).

Proof.

Proposition 8.5 (The mediator is not a quantum instrument).

Proof.

9. Quantum individual sufficiency and the comparison theorem

Theorem 9.1 (Transposition).

Proof.

Definition 9.2 (Quantum individual sufficiency).

Proposition 9.3 (⪰QIS\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}} and ⊒inc\sqsupseteq_{\mathrm{inc}} are preorders).

Proof.

Theorem 9.4 (Soundness: more information shrinks the equilibrium set).

Proof.

9.1. The order is inhabited

Definition 9.5 (Three garbling relations).

Proposition 9.6 (Instances).

Proof.

Proposition 9.7 (Classical individual sufficiency is an instance).

Proposition 9.3 ( $\succeq_{\mathrm{QIS}}$ and $\sqsupseteq_{\mathrm{inc}}$ are preorders).