Minimum entangled state dimension required for pseudo-telepathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pseudo-telepathy provides an intuitive way of looking at Bell's inequalities, in which it is often obvious that feats achievable by use of quantum entanglement would be classically impossible. A~two-player pseudo-telepathy game proceeds as follows: Alice and Bob are individually asked a question and they must provide an answer. They are \emph{not} allowed any form of communication once the questions are asked, but they may have agreed on a common strategy prior to the execution of the game. We~say that they \emph{win} the game if the questions and answers fulfil a specific relation. A~game exhibits \emph{pseudo-telepathy} if there is a quantum strategy that makes Alice and Bob win the game for all possible questions, provided they share prior entanglement, whereas it would be impossible to win this game systematically in a classical setting. In~this paper, we show that any two-player pseudo-telepathy game requires the quantum players to share an entangled quantum system of dimension at least~\mbox{$3 \times 3$}. This is optimal for two-player games, but the most efficient pseudo-telepathy game possible, in terms of total dimension, involves \emph{three} players who share a quantum system of dimension~\mbox{$2 \times 2 \times 2$}.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".