MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Impossibility of Pseudo-Telepathy Without Quantum Entanglement

2002· preprint· en· W2167662730 on OpenAlexaff
Viktor Galliard, Stefan Wolf, Alain Tapp

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2002
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicQuantum Computing Algorithms and Architecture
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantum entanglementImpossibilityString (physics)Alice and BobQuantumTask (project management)Computer scienceAlice (programming language)Quantum pseudo-telepathyTelepathyMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsTheoretical physicsPhysicsQuantum information scienceQuantum mechanicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imagine that Alice and Bob, unable to communicate, are both given a 16-bit string such that the strings are either equal, or they differ in exactly 8 positions. Both parties are then supposed to output a 4-bit string in such a way that these short strings are equal if and only if the original longer strings given to them were equal as well. It is known that this task can be fulfilled without failure and without communication if Alice and Bob share 4 maximally entangled quantum bits. We show that, on the other hand, they CANNOT win the same game with certainty if they only share classical bits, even if it is an unlimited number. This means that for fulfilling this particular distributed task, quantum entanglement can completely replace communication. This phenomenon has been called pseudo-telepathy. The results of this paper complete the analysis of the first proposed game of this type between two players.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicQuantum Computing Algorithms and ArchitectureFrench-language works237,207