Non-Signaling Parallel Repetition Using de Finetti Reductions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of multiplayer games, the parallel repetition problem can be phrased as follows: given a game G with optimal winning probability 1 - α and its repeated version G <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">n</sup> (in which n games are played together, in parallel), can the players use strategies that are substantially better than ones in which each game is played independently? This question is relevant in physics for the study of correlations and plays an important role in computer science in the context of complexity and cryptography. In this paper, the case of multiplayer non-signaling games is considered, i.e., the only restriction on the players is that they are not allowed to communicate during the game. For complete-support games (games where all possible combinations of questions have non-zero probability to be asked) with any number of players, we prove a threshold theorem stating that the probability that non-signaling players win more than a fraction 1-α+β of the n games is exponentially small in nβ <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> for every 0 ≤ β ≤ α. For games with incomplete support, we derive a similar statement for a slightly modified form of repetition. The result is proved using a new technique based on a recent de Finetti theorem, which allows us to avoid central technical difficulties that arise in standard proofs of parallel repetition theorems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it