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
Quantum games extend classical game theory into the quantum realm by incorporating quantum players and quantum strategies. Two-player quantum games have been widely studied and applied, among other areas, in optimization and decision-making. In this work, we introduce, formalize and analyze a novel class of three-player quantum games, referred to as Proxy Quantum Games (PQGs). In this setting, one player, the Controller, influences or governs the strategic operations executed by a second player, the Proxy, who, in turn, competes directly against a third player, the Opponent. The strategic influence is implemented via controlled unitary operations, whereby the Proxy’s available strategies are conditioned on the Controller’s quantum state. We further generalize the PQG framework by incorporating multiple Controllers acting on a common Proxy, thereby enabling the study of higher-order strategic interactions and multi-agent influence structures. The objective under consideration is the maximization of the Controller’s expected payoff, under various configurations of strategic control and entanglement. Comparative analyses are conducted between the PQG formulation and conventional multiplayer quantum games, highlighting key differences in strategic behavior and payoff distributions.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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