The geometry of simplicial distributions on suspension scenarios

Aziz Kharoof

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 33 references

The geometry of simplicial distributions on suspension scenarios

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adding a single measurement to a connected scenario decomposes every simplicial distribution into m independent slices, and noncontextuality holds exactly when every slice is noncontextual.

desk verdict Core cone decomposition is a genuinely useful structural theorem, but the suspension section contains an unproven general lemma that needs to be fixed before the advertised vertex examples are supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10963 v1 pith:PLAPYKOQ submitted 2024-12-14 quant-ph math.AT

Aziz Kharoof This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phmath.AT MSC 55U1018N5052B11

keywords simplicialdistributionscontextualityconeconstructionsuspensionBellinequalitiesnon-signalingpolytopedécalagejoinofconvexsets

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks what happens to the geometry of contextuality when a measurement space is modified by adding one extra measurement point (the cone construction) or by gluing two cones together (the suspension). The central claim is that for a connected measurement space with m-outcome measurements, the non-signaling polytope of the cone scenario is the join of m copies of the original polytope: $sDist(CX, \Delta\mathbb{Z}_m) \cong sDist(X, \Delta\mathbb{Z}_m) \star \cdots \star sDist(X, \Delta\mathbb{Z}_m)$. Under this decomposition a distribution is noncontextual exactly when each of its m component distributions is noncontextual, and it is an extreme point exactly when one component is extreme and carries all the weight. The same decomposition yields Bell inequalities for cone scenarios from known ones and, after gluing two cones, a characterization of noncontextuality on suspension scenarios plus a construction of contextual vertices. If the picture is right, ordinary topological operations on the measurement space organize the polytope of correlations, making contextuality a topological phenomenon.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a chain of three identifications. First, the cone–décalage adjunction $sSet(X, Dec_0Y) \cong sSet(CX,Y)$ turns simplicial distributions on $CX$ into simplicial distributions on $X$ valued in $Dec_0(\Delta\mathbb{Z}_m)$. Second, the décalage of the outcome space splits into a disjoint union of $m$ copies: $Dec_0(\Delta\mathbb{Z}_m) \cong \coprod_{a\in\mathbb{Z}_m} \Delta\mathbb{Z}_m$. Third, for a connected measurement space, distributions on a disjoint-union outcome space decompose as the join of distributions on the components, with scalars recording the total probability on each component. The join $\star$ is the coproduct of convex sets, so a vertex of a join is concentrated on a single component, and the hidden-variable map $\Theta$ commutes with the decomposition. Assembling these identifications gives the cone isomorphism, and the suspension case follows by gluing two such decompositions along $X$.

What would settle it

Compute the two sides of Corollary 3.13 for the disconnected space $X = \Delta^0 \sqcup \Delta^0$: the paper itself shows the left side is a product of two joins while the right side is a join of two products, so the isomorphism is false there. A concrete check of dimension or vertex counts for any disconnected $X$ would expose the precise role of connectedness, and finding a connected $X$ where the cone isomorphism fails would refute the main theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the core discovery is a structural identity about simplicial distributions rather than a single new inequality. For any connected simplicial set $X$ and outcome space $\Delta\mathbb{Z}_m$, the cone construction induces an isomorphism of convex sets $$sDist(CX, \$\Delta$\mathbb{Z}_m) \cong sDist(X, \$\Delta$\mathbb{Z}_m) \star \cdots \star sDist(X, \$\Delta$\mathbb{Z}_m)$$ ($m$ copies), where $\star$ is the join of convex sets, i.e. the coproduct in the category of convex sets. Under this isomorphism a distribution $p$ decomposes uniquely as $(\langle\lambda_1,p^{(1)}\rangle,\ldots,\langle\lambda_m,p^{(m)}\rangle)$ with $\sum_j\lambda_j=1$; $p$ is noncontextual if and only if every $p^{(j)}$ is noncontextual, and $p$ is a vertex if and only if some $\lambda_j=1$ and $p^{(j)}$ is a vertex. Gluing two copies of the cone along $X$, the suspension scenario inherits a pullback description of $sDist(\Sigma X, \Delta\mathbb{Z}_m)$, and noncontextuality is characterized by matching convex combinations of hidden-variable distributions on the upper and lower cones. From these structures the paper derives Bell inequalities for cone scenarios and gives a topological explanation of two families of contextual vertices appearing in the literature for the $(3,2,2)$ Bell scenario.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measurement space is connected in the combinatorial sense; the paper's own two-isolated-vertices example shows the decomposition fails without this condition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

An added party with one $m$-outcome measurement turns the old non-signaling polytope into an $m$-fold join, so dimension, vertex count, and facet structure of the enlarged polytope are computed from the old one.
Bell inequalities for any cone scenario can be written down from Bell inequalities for the base scenario: each original inequality becomes $m$ normalized inequalities indexed by the added party's outcome (Proposition 4.13).
On a suspension scenario, a distribution is noncontextual if and only if each of its upper and lower cone components is noncontextual through hidden-variable distributions whose weighted averages agree exactly (Proposition 5.4).
Complete collections of deterministic or average distributions on a line inside $X$ produce provably contextual vertices of $sDist(\Sigma X, \Delta\mathbb{Z}_m)$, providing a mathematical explanation for the $(3,2,2)$ vertices in the literature (Propositions 5.8 and 5.15).
The cone result quantifies how contextuality survives the addition of a party: no mixture of components can create contextuality unless some component already has it, and no mixture can create a new vertex unless a single component carries one.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper: the isomorphism gives a polytope-join rule for resource theories, so monotones such as dimension or vertex count of the non-signaling polytope can be updated exactly when one party is added, without recomputing the whole polytope.
Beyond the paper: the connectedness hypothesis is the real domain boundary; the paper's two-vertex counterexample suggests that disconnected measurement spaces should be handled by decomposing into connected components first and then combining the results with products at the splitting points.
Beyond the paper: because the décalage splitting holds for the nerve of any group, analogous cone and suspension decompositions should exist for other outcome groups, though the arithmetic conditions used to construct deterministic contextual vertices are special to $\mathbb{Z}_m$.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth reading for the cone decomposition alone. Theorem 4.11 (Theorem 1.1) — sDist(CX, ΔZ_m) is the join of m copies of sDist(X, ΔZ_m), with noncontextuality and vertices detected componentwise — is proved in detail and is a genuine structural handle on contextuality polytopes. The pullback description for suspensions in Proposition 5.2 is also neat and follows naturally from the cone result. The disjoint-union decomposition (Proposition 3.11) with the connectedness caveat is a solid extension of the classical fact, and the counterexample after Corollary 3.13 shows the author knows the hypothesis is load-bearing. The Bell-inequality derivation in Proposition 4.13 is a clean application.

The reader's conditional verdict is fair. Lemma 5.14 is the real soft spot. It is stated for any complete collection of average distributions, but the proof explicitly only treats Example 5.13 and never returns to the general case. Proposition 5.15 applies it to restrictions {p_j|_L} where the ordering of {I,S,...,S^{m-1}} on σ1 and σ2 can be arbitrary, so the general form is used. Example 5.16 (the (3,2,2) contextual vertex) depends on it. The stress-test note's suggested algebra — writing q_j|_{σ_k}=S^{α_k(j)} and deriving λ_j=μ_j then λ constant — looks plausible, so I suspect this is an omitted proof, not a false claim. But it needs to be written out. As it stands, the suspension-vertex results in 5.3 are unsupported.

Minor things: the introduction doesn't clearly separate what is new from [11] (Kharoof-Okay on cone spaces), and the section title 'Simiplicial distributions on suspension scenarios' has a typo. Neither affects the math.

Bottom line: the core cone material deserves a serious referee and will be cited. Send it out, but the referee should ask for a full proof of Lemma 5.14 (or a restriction of the statement to what is actually proved) before acceptance. If the author supplies the general algebra, the paper is in good shape.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the geometry of simplicial distributions on cone and suspension scenarios. It proves (Theorem 4.11) that for a connected simplicial set X, sDist(CX, ΔZ_m) is isomorphic to the join of m copies of sDist(X, ΔZ_m), with an explicit decomposition that preserves noncontextuality and extremality. It derives Bell inequalities for cone scenarios (Proposition 4.13), gives a pullback description of sDist(ΣX, ΔZ_m) (Proposition 5.2), and constructs contextual vertices in suspension scenarios from deterministic and average collections (Propositions 5.8 and 5.15). The main structural theorems are proved in detail; however, a proof gap in Lemma 5.14 affects Proposition 5.15 and Example 5.16.

Significance. If the gaps are repaired, the paper provides a clean structural tool for studying contextuality: the cone decomposition in Theorem 4.11 and the suspension pullback in Proposition 5.2 are elegant and likely useful for future work. The paper also contributes a new family of Bell inequalities and a topological explanation of some known contextual vertices. The treatment is self-contained and honest about the connectedness assumption, including a counterexample showing that the decomposition fails in general. The main gap is localized and appears fixable, but until it is repaired, the suspension-vertex examples are not fully supported.

major comments (2)

[5.3, Lemma 5.14] The lemma is stated for an arbitrary complete collection of average distributions, but the proof explicitly covers only the collection of Example 5.13. Proposition 5.15 uses the lemma for the restrictions {p_j|_L}, which are not necessarily of that form (Example 5.16 uses PR boxes on the CHSH scenario). Therefore Proposition 5.15 and the identification of the contextual vertex in Example 5.16 are not established as written. The general case is plausible—one can index the restrictions on σ1 and σ2 by powers of S—but the derivation must be written out.
[4.3, Proposition 4.13] The proof shows that each noncontextual distribution satisfies the displayed inequalities, but it does not verify the saturation and violation conditions required by Definition 2.12. These conditions are needed for the inequalities to be 'the Bell inequalities' of the cone scenario. They can presumably be shown by taking p = κ_j(p^(j)) with p^(j) saturating or violating the original inequality, but the argument is omitted.

minor comments (5)

[Section 5 heading] The section title contains a typo: 'Simiplicial distributions' should be 'Simplicial distributions'.
[Example 5.9] The phrase 'Let L be the line that generated by σ1, σ2, and σ3' should read 'Let L be the line generated by σ1, σ2, and σ3'.
[Proposition 5.2] The large diagram in the statement is hard to parse; naming the maps and making the pullback square explicit would improve readability.
[Definition 3.1] The notation A_• = {⟨λ,a⟩ ∈ [0,1] × A ⊔ {•}: λ=0 iff a=•} is ambiguous; the Cartesian product should be with A ⊔ {•} rather than with A.
[Proposition 4.13] The statement does not explicitly say that the displayed inequalities are to be written for each 0 ≤ j ≤ m-1 and for each original inequality; this indexing is implicit but should be stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cone/suspension decomposition and vertex characterizations are derived from definitions and prior framework results; one non-circular proof gap appears in Lemma 5.14.

full rationale

The derivation chain is genuinely constructive rather than circular. The event-space decomposition in Proposition 3.11 is proved directly from Lemma 3.6 and Definition 3.10, with the connectedness hypothesis doing real work, and the paper even provides a counterexample when connectedness fails. The cone decomposition in Theorem 4.11 follows from the décalage adjunction cited to [33] and the explicit commutative diagram (26), whose maps β(j) are computed from the isomorphism γ; the noncontextuality and vertex statements are then derived from the diagram and from Proposition 3.3, not assumed. The suspension pullback in Proposition 5.2 is a formal consequence of the pushout defining ΣX together with the cone decomposition, so it is not a restatement of the input. The contextual-vertex constructions in Propositions 5.8 and 5.15 reduce to the algebraic Lemmas 5.7 and 5.14, which are argued from convolution and support equations rather than from the desired conclusion. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation in the paper is equal to its own input by definition. Self-citations to [22], [10], and [13] are used for standard facts of the simplicial-distribution framework; these are prior mathematical results with stated assumptions and are not the sole support for the new structural theorem, which is proven in the text. One caveat is flagged for correctness rather than circularity: Lemma 5.14 says, “For simplicity, we will give a proof for the case that the complete collection of average distributions is the one given in Example 5.13,” and the paper does not supply the general proof that Proposition 5.15 actually uses. This is an omitted proof gap that should be addressed, but it does not make the derivation circular, because the general statement is not being assumed from a self-citation or from the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted parameters. It relies on standard simplicial homotopy theory and previously published results on simplicial distributions, several by the same author. The main external dependence is the décalage-cone adjunction and the vertex characterization from earlier work.

assumptions (3)

standard math For connected X, the bijection sSet(X, Dec0(Y)) ≅ sSet(CX, Y) (the décalage-cone adjunction).
Invoked in Section 4.2 (Equation 23) to prove the cone decomposition; cited from [33, Corollary 2.1].
standard math Vertex characterization: for finitely generated X = A ∪ B, p is a vertex iff p is the unique distribution whose restrictions lie in conv(Vsupp(p|A)) and conv(Vsupp(p|B)).
Used in Propositions 5.8 and 5.15 to certify vertices; cited from [13, Theorem 5.3].
standard math Deterministic distributions are the only noncontextual vertices.
Used to conclude contextual vertices in Propositions 5.8 and 5.15; cited from [22, Proposition 5.14].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The geometry of simplicial distributions on suspension scenarios." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PLAPYKOQ

@misc{pith2026241210963,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The geometry of simplicial distributions on suspension scenarios},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PLAPYKOQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10963}
}

abstract

Quantum measurements often exhibit non-classical features, such as contextuality, which generalizes Bell's non-locality and serves as a resource in various quantum computation models. Existing frameworks have rigorously captured these phenomena, and recently, simplicial distributions have been introduced to deepen this understanding. The geometrical structure of simplicial distributions can be seen as a resource for applications in quantum information theory. In this work, we use topological foundations to study this geometrical structure, leveraging the fact that, in this simplicial framework, measurements and outcomes are represented as spaces. This allows us to depict contextuality as a topological phenomenon. We show that applying the cone construction to the measurement space makes the corresponding non-signaling polytope equal to the join of $m$ copies of the original polytope, where $m$ is the number of possible outcomes per measurement. Then we glue two copies of cone measurement spaces to obtain a suspension measurement space. The decomposition done for simplicial distributions on a cone measurement space provides deeper insights into the geometry of simplicial distributions on a suspension measurement space and aids in characterizing the contextuality there. Additionally, we apply these results to derive a new type of Bell inequalities (inequalities that determine the set of local joint probabilities/non-contextual simplicial distributions) and to offer a mathematical explanation for certain contextual vertices from the literature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10963 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (a) A measurement space X. (b) The cone of the space X. (c) The suspension of the space X. In a typical Bell-type experiment, several observers perform measurements on a shared physical system. Each observer has a choice of different measurements to perform on his system. Each measurement can yield some possible outcomes. A natural question arises: what happens if an additional party, with just one measurement, join… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[11]

Homotopical characterization of strongly contextual simplicial distributions on cone spaces

A. Kharoof & C. Okay, “Homotopical characterization of strongly contextual simplicial distributions on cone spaces”, Topology and its Applications 352 (2024): 108956

work page 2024
[1]

Contextuality in measurement-based quantum computation

R .Raussendorf, “Contextuality in measurement-based quantum computation”, Physical Review A, vol. 88, no. 2, p. 022322, 2013

work page 2013
[2]

Contextuality supplies the magic for quantum computation

M. Howard, J. Wallman, V. Veitch, & J. Emerson, “Contextuality supplies the magic for quantum computation”, Nature, vol. 510, no. 7505, pp. 351-355, 2014

work page 2014
[3]

Quantum advantage with shallow circuits

S. Bravyi, D. Gosset, & R. Konig, “Quantum advantage with shallow circuits”, Science, vol. 362, no. 6412, pp. 308-311, 2018

work page 2018
[4]

The role of cohomology in quantum computation with magic states

R. Raussendorf, C. Okay, M. Zurel, & P. Feldmann, “The role of cohomology in quantum computation with magic states”, Quantum, vol. 7, p. 979, 2023 31

work page 2023
[5]

The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality

S. Abramsky & A. Brandenburger, “The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality” New Journal of Physics, vol. 13, no. 11, p. 113036, 2011. doi: 10.1088/1367- 2630/13/11/113036

doi:10.1088/1367- 2011
[6]

The cohomology of non-locality and contextu- ality

S. Abramsky, S. Mansfield & R. Barbosa, “The cohomology of non-locality and contextu- ality”, Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 95 (2012) - Proceedings 8th International Workshop on Quantum Physics and Logic (QPL 2011), Nijmegen, pp. 1-14

work page 2012
[7]

Topological proofs of contextuality in quantum mechanics

C. Okay, S. Roberts, S.D. Bartlett, & R. Raussendorf, “Topological proofs of contextuality in quantum mechanics”, Quantum Information & Computation , vol. 17, no. 13-14, pp. 1135-1166, 2017. doi: 10.26421/QIC17.13-14-5

doi:10.26421/qic17.13-14-5 2017

Show all 33 references

[8]

Simplicial quantum contextuality

C. Okay, A. Kharoof & S. Ipek, “Simplicial quantum contextuality”, Quantum 7 (2023), p. 1009

2023
[9]

P. G. Goerss & J. F. Jardine, Simplicial homotopy theory. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

2009
[10]

Topological methods for studying contextuality: N-cycle scenarios and beyond

A. Kharoof, S. Ipek & C. Okay, “Topological methods for studying contextuality: N-cycle scenarios and beyond”, Entropy, vol. 25, no. 8, 2023

2023
[12]

On the rank of two-dimensional simplicial distributions

C. Okay, “On the rank of two-dimensional simplicial distributions”, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.15794 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[13]

Extremal simplicial distributions on cycle scenarios with arbitrary outcomes

A. Kharoof, S. Ipek, & C. Okay, “Extremal simplicial distributions on cycle scenarios with arbitrary outcomes”, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19961 (2024)

2024
[14]

On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox

J. S. Bell, “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox”, Physics Physique Fizika , vol. 1, pp. 195-200, Nov 1964. doi: 10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

1964 doi
[15]

Hidden variables, joint probability, and the Bell inequalities

A. Fine, “Hidden variables, joint probability, and the Bell inequalities”, Physical Review Letters 48.5 (1982): 291

1982
[16]

Quantum nonlocality as an axiom

S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, “Quantum nonlocality as an axiom”, Foundations of Physics, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 379-385, 1994. doi: 10.1007/BF02058098

1994 doi
[17]

Nonlocal correlations as an information-theoretic resource

J. Barrett, N. Linden, S. Massar, S. Pironio, S. Popescu, and D. Roberts, “Nonlocal correlations as an information-theoretic resource”, Physical Review A, vol. 71, p. 022101, Feb 2005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.022101. arXiv: quant-ph/0404097

2005 arXiv
[18]

Composition methods in the homotopy groups of spheres

H. Toda, “Composition methods in the homotopy groups of spheres”, Annals of Mathe- matics Studies , No. 49, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1962. MR0143217

1962
[19]

Higher order Toda brackets

A. Kharoof, “Higher order Toda brackets”, J. Homotopy & Rel. Str. 16 (2021), pp. 451- 486

2021
[20]

An elementary illustrated introduction to simplicial sets

G. Friedman, “An elementary illustrated introduction to simplicial sets”, arXiv preprint arXiv:0809.4221 (2008)

2008 arXiv
[21]

S.M. Lane. Categories for the Working Mathematician, Springer New York, 1978. 32

1978
[22]

Simplicial distributions, convex categories and contextuality

A. Kharoof & C. Okay, “Simplicial distributions, convex categories and contextuality”, arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.00571 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[23]

Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories

J. Clauser, M. Horne, A. Shimony, & R. Holt, “Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories”, Physical review letters , 23(15):880, 1969. doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.23.880

1969 doi
[24]

A bundle perspective on contextuality: Empirical models and simplicial distributions on bundle scenarios

R. Barbosa, A. Kharoof, & C. Okay, “A bundle perspective on contextuality: Empirical models and simplicial distributions on bundle scenarios”, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06336 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[25]

Contextual fraction as a measure of contex- tuality

S. Abramsky, R. Barbosa, & S. Mansfield, “Contextual fraction as a measure of contex- tuality”, Physical review letters 119.5 (2017): 050504

2017
[26]

Constructive generalization of Bell’s inequalities

M. Froissart, “Constructive generalization of Bell’s inequalities”, Nuovo Cimento B;(Italy), vol. 64, no. 2, 1981. doi: 10.1007/BF02903286

1981 doi
[27]

Convexity, duality and effects

B. Jacobs, “Convexity, duality and effects”, In IFIP Advances in Information and Com- munication Technology, pages 1-19. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010

2010
[28]

The operadic theory of convexity

R. Haderi, C. Okay, and W. Stern, “The operadic theory of convexity”, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18102 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[29]

Barr & C

M. Barr & C. Wells. Toposes, triples and theories, volume 278. Springer-Verlag New York, 1985

1985
[30]

States of convex sets

B. Jacobs, B. Westerbaan, & B. Westerbaan, “States of convex sets”, Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures : 18th International Conference, FOSSACS 2015, Held as Part of the European Joint Conferences on Theory and Practice of Software, ETAPS 2015, London, ...

2015
[31]

E. Rieh. Category theory in context, Courier Dover Publications, 2017

2017
[32]

D ´ecalage and Kan’s simplicial loop group functor

D. Stevenson, “D ´ecalage and Kan’s simplicial loop group functor”, Theory Appl. Categ., vol. 26, pp. No. 28, 768-787, 2012

2012
[33]

Classifying theory for simplicial parametrized groups

D. Stevenson, “Classifying theory for simplicial parametrized groups”, arXiv preprint arXiv:1203.2461 (2012). 33

2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [11]

Homotopical characterization of strongly contextual simplicial distributions on cone spaces

A. Kharoof & C. Okay, “Homotopical characterization of strongly contextual simplicial distributions on cone spaces”, Topology and its Applications 352 (2024): 108956

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Contextuality in measurement-based quantum computation

R .Raussendorf, “Contextuality in measurement-based quantum computation”, Physical Review A, vol. 88, no. 2, p. 022322, 2013

work page 2013

[3] [2]

Contextuality supplies the magic for quantum computation

M. Howard, J. Wallman, V. Veitch, & J. Emerson, “Contextuality supplies the magic for quantum computation”, Nature, vol. 510, no. 7505, pp. 351-355, 2014

work page 2014

[4] [3]

Quantum advantage with shallow circuits

S. Bravyi, D. Gosset, & R. Konig, “Quantum advantage with shallow circuits”, Science, vol. 362, no. 6412, pp. 308-311, 2018

work page 2018

[5] [4]

The role of cohomology in quantum computation with magic states

R. Raussendorf, C. Okay, M. Zurel, & P. Feldmann, “The role of cohomology in quantum computation with magic states”, Quantum, vol. 7, p. 979, 2023 31

work page 2023

[6] [5]

The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality

S. Abramsky & A. Brandenburger, “The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality” New Journal of Physics, vol. 13, no. 11, p. 113036, 2011. doi: 10.1088/1367- 2630/13/11/113036

doi:10.1088/1367- 2011

[7] [6]

The cohomology of non-locality and contextu- ality

S. Abramsky, S. Mansfield & R. Barbosa, “The cohomology of non-locality and contextu- ality”, Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 95 (2012) - Proceedings 8th International Workshop on Quantum Physics and Logic (QPL 2011), Nijmegen, pp. 1-14

work page 2012

[8] [7]

Topological proofs of contextuality in quantum mechanics

C. Okay, S. Roberts, S.D. Bartlett, & R. Raussendorf, “Topological proofs of contextuality in quantum mechanics”, Quantum Information & Computation , vol. 17, no. 13-14, pp. 1135-1166, 2017. doi: 10.26421/QIC17.13-14-5

doi:10.26421/qic17.13-14-5 2017