A quantum board game is a multi-round protocol between a single quantum player against the quantum board. Molina and Watrous discovered quantum hedging. They gave an example for perfect quantum hedging: a board game with winning probability < 1, such that the player can win with certainty at least 1-out-of-2 quantum board games played in parallel. Here we show that perfect quantum hedging occurs in a cryptographic protocol – quantum coin flipping. For this reason, when cryptographic protocols are composed in parallel, hedging may introduce serious challenges into their analysis. We also show that hedging cannot occur when playing two-outcome board games in sequence. This is done by showing a formula for the value of sequential two-outcome board games, which depends only on the optimal value of a single board game; this formula applies in a more general setting of possible target functions, in which hedging is only a special case.
A quantum board game is a multi-round protocol between a single quantum player against the quantum board. Molina and Watrous discovered quantum hedging. They gave an example for perfect quantum hedging: a board game with winning probability < 1, such that the player can win with certainty at least 1-out-of-2 quantum board games played in parallel. Here we show that perfect quantum hedging occurs in a cryptographic protocol – quantum coin flipping. For this reason, when cryptographic protocols are composed in parallel, hedging may introduce serious challenges into their analysis. We also show that hedging cannot occur when playing two-outcome board games in sequence. This is done by showing a formula for the value of sequential two-outcome board games, which depends only on the optimal value of a single board game; this formula applies in a more general setting of possible target functions, in which hedging is only a special case.
We consider the problem of a particular kind of quantum correlation that arises in some two-party games. In these games, one player is presented with a question they must answer, yielding an outcome of either 'win' or 'lose'. Molina and Watrous (arXiv:1104.1140) studied such a game that exhibited a perfect form of hedging, where the risk of losing a first game can completely offset the corresponding risk for a second game. This is a non-classical quantum phenomenon, and establishes the impossibility of performing strong error-reduction for quantum interactive proof systems by parallel repetition, unlike for classical interactive proof systems. We take a step in this article towards a better understanding of the hedging phenomenon by giving a complete characterization of when perfect hedging is possible for a natural generalization of the game in arXiv:1104.1140. Exploring in a different direction the subject of quantum hedging, and motivated by implementation concerns regarding loss-tolerance, we also consider a variation of the protocol where the player who receives the question can choose to restart the game rather than return an answer. We show that in this setting there is no possible hedging for any game played with state spaces corresponding to finite-dimensional complex Euclidean spaces.
This paper reviews the coin flipping problem of PQ in a classical two-player game, and shows that when one player adopts quantum strategy, he can beat his classical opponent and gain higher returns. By means of quantitative means, the whole PQ problem is put in a more general and fair condition, and it is generalized and studied again from many aspects and angles. Finally, we get some more essential and important conclusions, and through some examples to explain the conclusions and its practical significances. At the same time, this paper gives the definitions of imperfect fair games and perfect fair games, revises the quantum coin flipping game to make the game fair, and studies a multi-round version of quantum coin flipping. Some basic conclusions of fair quantum game are obtained, and the meaning of perfectly fair game is explained in practice.
This paper reviews the coin flipping problem of “PQ” in a classical two-player game, and shows that when one player adopts quantum strategy, he can beat his classical opponent and gain higher returns. By using quantitative means, the whole “PQ” problem is put under a more general and fair condition, and it is generalized and studied again from many aspects and angles. Finally, we obtain some more essential and important conclusions, and explain the conclusions and its practical significance through some practical examples. At the same time, this paper gives the definition of imperfect fair game and the definition of perfect fair game, revises the quantum coin flipping game to make the game fair, and studies a multi-round version of quantum coin flipping. Some basic conclusions of fair quantum game are obtained, and the meaning of perfectly fair game is explained in practice.
Coin flipping is a cryptographic primitive in which two spatially separated players, who in principle do not trust each other, wish to agree on a random bit. Classical and quantum coin flipping protocols have been studied extensively for more than twenty‐five years. However, until recently, quantum coin flipping protocols were designed without taking into consideration the losses of quantum information that would be unavoidable in any realistic implementation. We introduced in 2008 a novel protocol and proved its security even when losses are taken into account: no cheating player could obtain a desired outcome with a probability greater than (6+2)/8≈93%. Here, we refine our earlier protocol by making it fair in the sense that the optimal cheating strategies allow either player to bias the outcome by the same amount. Specifically, either player can cheat to obtain a desired outcome with probability exactly 90%, but no more. An implementation is underway.
Two losing games can be played in a certain manner to produce a winning outcome-a phenomenon known as Parrondo's paradox. Of particular interest is the emergence of quantum game theory and the attempt to model known Parrondo's games through quantum computation notation. In this article, we investigate whether flipping four-sided quantum coins will result in the emergence of Parrondo's paradox. We discover that by playing two losing games A and B in a sequential order, a winning scenario can be derived. Furthermore, four-sided quantum coin is the first instance where the ratcheting effect from the classical Parrondo's game is necessary. Crucially, our study is designed with quantum protocols as its basis and does not have a direct classical counterpart.
Coin flipping is a cryptographic primitive in which two spatially separated players, who do not trust each other, wish to establish a common random bit. If we limit ourselves to classical communication, this task requires either assumptions on the computational power of the players or it requires them to send messages to each other with sufficient simultaneity to force their complete independence. Without such assumptions, all classical protocols are so that one dishonest player has complete control over the outcome. If we use quantum communication, on the other hand, protocols have been introduced that limit the maximal bias that dishonest players can produce. However, those protocols would be very difficult to implement in practice because they are susceptible to realistic losses on the quantum channel between the players or in their quantum memory and measurement apparatus. In this paper, we introduce a quantum protocol and we prove that it is completely impervious to loss. The protocol is fair in the sense that either player has the same probability of success in cheating attempts at biasing the outcome of the coin flip. We also give explicit and optimal cheating strategies for both players.