
$\$_{A}$ increases from one to two. With an completely corrupt source, $r=1$, the payoffs become $(\$_{A},\$_{B})=(2,1)$. The reason for this is the same as explained for PD. When the quantum strategies with and without corrupt source are compared to the classical mixed strategy without noise, it is seen that the former ones always give better payoffs to the players. However, when the source becomes noisy (corrupt), classical strategies become more advantageous to quantum ones with increasing corruption rate. The range of corruption rate where classical strategies are better than the quantum strategy if the players stick to their operations $i\hat{\sigma}_{y}$, are $0.2<r<0.5$ and $0.5<r<0.8$ for Alice and Bob, respectively. When $r=1/2$, $\$_{A}=\$_{B}$ and these payoffs are equal to the ones received with classical mixed strategies. While $\$_{A}=\$_{B}$ independently of $r$ for classical mixed strategies, $\$_{A}$ and $\$_{B}$ differ when the players stick to their quantum strategies for $r\neq1/2$. Another interesting result for this game is that, contrary to PD and SD, the strategy $\hat{U}_{A}=\hat{U}_{B}=(\hat{\sigma}_{0}+i\hat{\sigma}_{y})/\sqrt{2}$ discussed above always gives a constant payoff $(3/4,3/4)$, which is better than that of the classical mixed strategy.

[***Scenario II:***]{} In this scenario, the referee knows the characteristics of the corruption in the source, and inform the players on the corruption rate. Then the question is whether the players can find a unique NE for a known source with corruption rate $r$; and if they can, does this NE resolve their dilemma in the game or not. When the corruption rate is $r=1/2$, the state shared between the players become $\hat{\rho}=\hat{I}/4$. Then independent of what action they choose, the players receive constant payoffs determined by averaging the payoff entries

       $r$    $~~~~\hat{U}_{A}(\theta_{A},\phi_{A})~~~~$   $~~~~\hat{U}_{B}(\theta_{B},\phi_{B})~~~~$          $(\$_{A},\$_{B})$             
  -- ------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
$ \$_{A}$ increases from one to two. With an completely corrupt source, $ r=1 $, the return become $ (\$_{A},\$_{B})=(2,1)$. The rationality for this is the same as explained for PD. When the quantum strategies with and without crooked source are compared to the classical assorted strategy without noise, it is see that the former ones constantly give better payoffs to the player. However, when the source become noisy (corrupt), classical scheme become more advantageous to quantum ones with increasing corruption pace. The range of corruption pace where classical strategy are better than the quantum scheme if the players stick to their operations $ i\hat{\sigma}_{y}$, are $ 0.2 < r<0.5 $ and $ 0.5 < r<0.8 $ for Alice and Bob, respectively. When $ r=1/2 $, $ \$_{A}=\$_{B}$ and these payoffs are adequate to the ones received with classical mixed strategies. While $ \$_{A}=\$_{B}$ independently of $ r$ for classical mixed strategies, $ \$_{A}$ and $ \$_{B}$ differ when the players stick to their quantum strategies for $ r\neq1/2$. Another interesting result for this game is that, contrary to PD and SD, the strategy $ \hat{U}_{A}=\hat{U}_{B}=(\hat{\sigma}_{0}+i\hat{\sigma}_{y})/\sqrt{2}$ discussed above constantly gives a constant wages $ (3/4,3/4)$, which is better than that of the classical mixed strategy. 

 [ * * * Scenario II :* * * ] { } In this scenario, the reviewer knows the characteristic of the corruption in the source, and inform the player on the corruption rate. Then the question is whether the players can witness a unique NE for a known source with corruption rate $ r$; and if they can, does this NE resolve their dilemma in the plot or not. When the corruptness rate is $ r=1/2 $, the state shared between the players become $ \hat{\rho}=\hat{I}/4$. Then autonomous of what action they choose, the players receive constant payoffs determined by averaging the payoff entries 

        $ r$     $ ~~~~\hat{U}_{A}(\theta_{A},\phi_{A})~~~~$    $ ~~~~\hat{U}_{B}(\theta_{B},\phi_{B})~~~~$           $ (\$_{A},\$_{B})$             
   -- ------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

$\$_{A}$ ijcreases from one to two. With an complejeoy corcupt sohrce, $r=1$, tfe payoffs become $(\$_{A},\$_{B})=(2,1)$. The readob for this is the same as ebplained vor PD. Wyen uhe quantum stratxfies wibk and aithmnt corrupt sourge are compdred to the cldsrieal mixed strategy without noise, it ys seen tjat the former onex alwzjs give better payoffs to the pmayers. Iowever, when thr source becomes noisy (corgupt), classical strategles become nore qdvantageous to quantum ones with jncreasing corruption rate. The fange of corrupjnin gdte where coassibal strategies are bedter thsn the quantum stcatety if the players stirk to their operatiogs $i\hat{\sicmc}_{y}$, are $0.2<r<0.5$ and $0.5<r<0.8$ for Alucw and Bob, resowctkvemy. Wgen $r=1/2$, $\$_{W}=\$_{B}$ end these pzyoffs are wqual to the ones rtceynrd with clasaical iived strategies. While $\$_{A}=\$_{B}$ independently ox $r$ for classical mixed steategies, $\$_{A}$ and $\$_{B}$ diffgr when thq players stick to their quantum strategies for $r\teq1/2$. Aioghex intefwshing result for this game is that, contrary to LD akd SD, the strateny $\hat{U}_{A}=\hat{U}_{B}=(\hat{\sibmw}_{0}+i\nwt{\sigma}_{y})/\sqrt{2}$ aiscussed above always gived a conftant payoff $(3/4,3/4)$, rhicn is better than that of thw classical iuxed strategy.

[***Scenaxio II:***]{} In thns scemario, the referee knows the eharacferistics ov the cordjption in the sojrcv, ang inform the players on thq corruptmon rcte. Then the questyon is whehher bve players can finf a uuique NE for a nnown source with corruption ravx $r$; and if thgy wan, does thns NE vesolve their dylemma in the yame or uot. Whdn the corguption rete is $r=1/2$, the state shared hetween the 'layers bqcomw $\har{\rho}=\hat{K}/4$. Then independrnt of whcu action tyey choose, the planers tedeive constant 'cyiffs determined by avqrwgmng tra payoff entsies

       $r$    $~~~~\hat{U}_{A}(\theba_{A},\ohi_{A})~~~~$   $~~~~\hat{U}_{B}(\theta_{B},\phi_{B})~~~~$          $(\$_{A},\$_{B})$             
  -- ------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
$\$_{A}$ increases from one to two. With corrupt $r=1$, the become $(\$_{A},\$_{B})=(2,1)$. The same explained for PD. the quantum strategies and without corrupt source are compared the classical mixed strategy without noise, it is seen that the former ones give better payoffs to the players. However, when the source becomes noisy (corrupt), strategies more to ones with increasing corruption rate. The range of corruption rate where classical strategies are better than quantum strategy if the players stick to their $i\hat{\sigma}_{y}$, are $0.2<r<0.5$ and for Alice and Bob, respectively. $r=1/2$, and these are to ones received with mixed strategies. While $\$_{A}=\$_{B}$ independently of $r$ for classical mixed strategies, $\$_{A}$ and $\$_{B}$ differ when the stick to strategies for Another result this game is to PD and SD, the strategy always gives a constant payoff $(3/4,3/4)$, which is than that the classical mixed strategy. [***Scenario II:***]{} this scenario, the referee knows the characteristics of corruption in the source, and inform the players on the corruption rate. Then the question the players can find unique NE for known with rate and if can, does this NE resolve their dilemma in the game or When the corruption rate is $r=1/2$, the state shared between become Then independent of action they choose, the receive payoffs determined by averaging entries $~~~~\hat{U}_{A}(\theta_{A},\phi_{A})~~~~$ ------- --------------------------------------------

$\$_{A}$ increases from one to two. WitH an completEly coRruPt sOuRce, $r=1$, The pAyoffs become $(\$_{A},\$_{B})=(2,1)$. tHe reAson for this is the same as ExplaInED for pd. WHen thE quantuM StRATegIeS wIth AnD WiThout CorRupt souRce are compAreD tO the classicaL MiXed strategY wiThout noise, it Is sEen thaT tHe fORmer oNes AlwayS give bETter paYoffs to thE pLAyers. HOWever, whEN ThE souRce becomes noisy (coRRuPT), classical straTegies BeCOmE MOre AdvAntageous tO qUantuM Ones witH InCREAsiNG corruption raTe. The range oF CorRuptioN rAte WHere clAssicAl STraTegies are beTter Than the quAntum sTRategy iF The playErs stiCk tO thEir oPErAtIonS $i\HAt{\sIGmA}_{y}$, aRE $0.2<r<0.5$ aNd $0.5<r<0.8$ for AlIcE aNd Bob, RespECTIVely. wheN $r=1/2$, $\$_{A}=\$_{B}$ And thEse payoffs are EquAl to THe oNes reCeiveD witH cLassiCal mixEd strAtEgies. While $\$_{A}=\$_{B}$ indEpenDently of $r$ For ClAssIcAl mixED stratEgiEs, $\$_{A}$ And $\$_{B}$ difFer when THe pLaYERS sTick to their quantum StRATeGies for $r\Neq1/2$. AnoTHeR iNTerestinG rEsuLt foR THis gaMe is THaT, contrarY to PD aND Sd, tHe stratEgY $\hat{U}_{A}=\HaT{U}_{B}=(\Hat{\Sigma}_{0}+I\Hat{\sIgma}_{y})/\sQrt{2}$ discuSsed aBOve always gives A Constant payofF $(3/4,3/4)$, WhICH iS BettEr tHan that of thE claSSicaL mixED sTraTEgy.

[***ScEnariO Ii:***]{} in THis scenario, the referEe Knows tHe chaRacteristics oF the corrupTION in the soUrce, ANd INform the playerS on thE corruptioN Rate. Then The quEstion is Whether thE PLayers caN fiNd a UniQue ne FoR a known source WITh coRrUption rAte $R$; and if tHey Can, DoeS thIs nE resolve Their dilEmMa In ThE gaMe or nOT. When the CoRruPtIon Rate iS $R=1/2$, the stAte shAred BeTwEEn tHe playeRS bECOme $\hAt{\RhO}=\hat{i}/4$. ThEn IndepEndeNT of What actIon they chOosE, The pLaYeRs receiVe constant payOfFs determinEd By aVeragiNG The payofF entries

       $r$    $~~~~\hat{U}_{A}(\theta_{A},\phi_{a})~~~~$   $~~~~\Hat{U}_{B}(\thEta_{b},\phi_{B})~~~~$          $(\$_{a},\$_{B})$             
  -- ------- -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------

$\$_{A}$ increases from o ne to two.  With  an  co mp lete ly c orrupt source, $r=1 $, the payoffs become$(\$_ {A } ,\$_ { B} )=(2, 1)$. Th e  r e a son  f or  th is is  thesam e as ex plained fo r P D.  When the qu a nt um strateg ies  with and wi tho ut cor ru pts ource  ar e com paredt o theclassical  m i xed st r ategy w i t ho ut n oise, it is seent ha t  the former on es alw ay s  g i v e b ett er payoffs  t o the players .  H o w e ver ,  when the sou rce becomes noi sy (co rr upt ) , clas sical  s t rat egies becom e mo re advant ageous to quan t um ones  withinc rea sing co rr upt io n  ra t e.  Th e  ra nge of c or ru ption  rat e w h erecla ssic al st rategies arebet tert han  thequant um s tr ategy  if th e pla ye rs stick to the ir o perations  $i \h at{ \s igma} _ {y}$,are  $0 .2<r<0. 5$ and$ 0.5 <r < 0 . 8$  for Alice and Bob ,r e sp ectively . When $r =1 / 2$, $\$_ {A }=\ $_{B } $  andthes e  p ayoffs a re equ a lto  the on es  recei ve d w ith  clas s ical  mixed  strateg ies.W hile $\$_{A}=\ $ _{B}$ indepen d en t l yo f $r $ f or classica l mi x ed s trat e gi es, $\$_{ A}$ a nd $\ $ _{B}$ differ when t he  playe rs st ick to theirquantum st r a t egies fo r $r \ ne q 1/2$. Anotherinter esting res u lt for t his g ame is t hat, cont r a ry to PD  an d S D,the s tr ategy $\hat{U } _ {A}= \h at{U}_{ B}= (\hat{\ sig ma} _{0 }+i \h at{\sigma }_{y})/\ sq rt {2 }$  di scuss e d aboveal way sgiv es ac onstan t pay off$( 3/ 4 ,3/ 4)$, wh i ch i s be tt er  tha n t ha t ofthec las sical m ixed stra teg y .

[ ** *S cenario  II:***]{} In  t his scenar io , t he ref e r ee knows  the characteristics of the cor rup tionin t he source , a nd inf orm the pl ayerson th ecor r u ption r at e.Th en the que s t ion  is w he ther  the pl ayers can find a u n iqu e NE for a kn own  sou r c ewit h  c o rru pt i onr a te $r$; and ifthey can,do e sthis NE re s olv etheir d ilemmain th e  game o r not. Wh en the co rr upti o n  ra te is $r=1 /2$, the  state sh a red b e tw een t heplayer sbec ome $ \hat{\ r ho} =\hat {I}/4$ .Then i ndepe nd ent of w hat action they choose,  the p layer s r eceive co nst a ntpayoffs d eter mined by a ver agi ng th e p a yoffentr i es 

    $r$  $~~~~\h a t{ U}_ { A }( \theta_{A}, \ p h i_{ A})~~ ~~$   $~~~ ~\ha t{U}_{B}(\theta_{ B },\phi_{B})~~~ ~$     $ (\$_ {A },\$_{B})$        
  ---- ----- ----- -------- -- - ----- ------ ------ ------- - - -- ------ ---- --- --------- --- -- - ------- -- -- - ---- - ---- -- ------ ------ - ---- - - --------

$\$_{A}$ increases_from one_to two. With an_completely corrupt_source,_$r=1$, the_payoffs_become $(\$_{A},\$_{B})=(2,1)$. The_reason for this_is the same as_explained for PD._When_the quantum strategies with and without corrupt source are compared to the classical mixed_strategy_without noise,_it_is_seen that the former ones_always give better payoffs to_the players._However, when the source becomes noisy (corrupt), classical_strategies_become more advantageous_to quantum ones with increasing corruption rate. The range_of corruption rate where classical strategies_are better than_the_quantum_strategy if the players_stick to their operations $i\hat{\sigma}_{y}$, are_$0.2<r<0.5$ and $0.5<r<0.8$ for Alice and_Bob, respectively. When $r=1/2$, $\$_{A}=\$_{B}$ and these_payoffs are equal to the ones_received with classical mixed strategies._While $\$_{A}=\$_{B}$_independently of $r$ for classical_mixed strategies, $\$_{A}$_and $\$_{B}$_differ when the_players stick to their quantum strategies_for $r\neq1/2$. Another_interesting result for this game is_that,_contrary to PD_and_SD,_the strategy_$\hat{U}_{A}=\hat{U}_{B}=(\hat{\sigma}_{0}+i\hat{\sigma}_{y})/\sqrt{2}$ discussed above_always_gives a_constant_payoff $(3/4,3/4)$, which is better than_that_of the classical mixed strategy.

[***Scenario II:***]{} In_this scenario, the referee_knows_the characteristics of the_corruption in the source, and_inform the players on the corruption_rate. Then_the question_is whether the players can find a unique NE for a_known source with corruption rate $r$;_and if they can,_does this_NE_resolve their dilemma_in_the game_or not. When the corruption rate is_$r=1/2$, the_state shared between the players become_$\hat{\rho}=\hat{I}/4$. Then independent of_what_action they choose, the players receive_constant payoffs determined by averaging the_payoff entries

   ___ $r$   _$~~~~\hat{U}_{A}(\theta_{A},\phi_{A})~~~~$   $~~~~\hat{U}_{B}(\theta_{B},\phi_{B})~~~~$  _  _    $(\$_{A},\$_{B})$  __     __  
  -- -------_--------------------------------------------_--------------------------------------------_----------------------------------