Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 65 references

Accumulation of Device-Independent Quantum Randomness against Time-Ordered No-Signalling Adversaries

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Raw Bell-test randomness does accumulate linearly against time-ordered no-signalling adversaries, while many pseudotelepathy games certify none.

desk verdict The main accumulation theorem is false as stated: TONS permits a two-branch strategy with per-round value 17/18 but constant guessing probability, because the Azuma step relies on a conditional drift the constraints never provide. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17020 v1 pith:RZTDDMPR submitted 2025-06-20 quant-ph

Ravishankar Ramanathan , Yuan Liu , Yutian Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords device-independentrandomnesstime-orderedno-signallingadversarychainedBellinequalitymin-entropyaccumulationmonogamyofnonlocalitypseudotelepathygamesguessingprobability
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

The paper's central claim is that raw randomness from a Bell test does accumulate linearly against the most general causality-only eavesdropper: a no-signalling adversary in the time-ordered no-signalling (TONS) setting, where past rounds may influence future behaviour but no signal passes between separated devices. Earlier numerics for up to five rounds suggested that the guessing probability might not decay exponentially; the paper argues those were finite-size effects and proves an exponential bound $e^{-\Omega(n)}$ for large $n$ for every game with monogamy of nonlocality, working out explicit rates for the three-input chained Bell inequality. The second claim is that this property is not universal: for bipartite pseudotelepathy games won by maximally entangled states of dimension $d\ge 3$ and satisfying a graph-theoretic assumption, even maximal violation leaves Alice's output perfectly guessable by a no-signalling adversary. If both claims hold, protocol designers can use chained or CHSH-type tests for causality-based security but must avoid pseudotelepathy games. A side result gives exact analytical min-entropy formulas for the chained Bell test against both quantum and no-signalling adversaries, useful for rate estimation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the tripartite guessing game $G_g$ built from a bipartite non-local game $G$: in each round Alice, Bob, and Eve receive inputs $x,y,z$, and win if Alice and Bob satisfy $G$'s winning condition while Eve's output matches Alice's whenever $z=x$. Monogamy of nonlocality is the property that near-maximal winning probability in $G$ forces Alice's output to be essentially uncorrelated with any third party; it manifests here as a gap between $\omega_{NS}(G)$ and the no-signalling value of $G_g$ (equal to $8/9$ for the three-input chained game). The proof leverages two quantitative tools: the $\epsilon$-almost-no-signalling stability of the guessing-game value (Lemma 1, value $(8+10\epsilon)/9$) and the $t$-out-of-$n$ parallel-repetition concentration theorem for no-signalling games, which converts a constant win probability below one into exponential decay over $n$ independent rounds. Standard martingale inequalities and a generalized tail bound connect the game value to the protocol's abort condition and to the subset of rounds in which Eve's input equals Alice's. For the negative result on pseudotelepathy games, the machinery is different: weak Kochen-Specker sets (vector sets with no consistent binary outcome assignment on every basis), the fractional stable set polytope of the orthogonality graph (the set of non-negative vertex assignments obeying $u_i+u_j\le 1$ on every edge; its vertices are known to be $\{0,1/2,1\}$-valued), and a construction turning such assignments into no-signalling bipartite behaviours that, averaged over Eve's choices, allow perfect guessing.

What would settle it

Take the dual linear program in Eqs. (A5)-(A6) and solve it to certified precision for $\epsilon=0,0.05,0.1$; if any optimum exceeds $(8+10\epsilon)/9$, Lemma 1 is false and the exponential bound in the TONS proof does not follow. Separately, instantiate the attack construction in the pseudotelepathy section on the Magic Square game and check non-negativity, normalisation, and every no-signalling condition; a violation would refute the claimed universality of that attack.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that the asymptotic behaviour of randomness accumulation in the TONS scenario is controlled by whether the non-local game exhibits monogamy of nonlocality. For such games, with the argument made explicit for the $m=3$ chained Bell inequality, Eve's guessing probability satisfies $P_g(x^*,\omega^*)\le e^{-\Omega(n)}$ whenever each round's Alice-Bob marginal achieves value $\omega^*$; the proof constructs the associated tripartite guessing game, computes its no-signalling value as $8/9$, shows that this value is stable under $\epsilon$-almost-no-signalling perturbations with slope $10/9$ on $\epsilon\in[0,1/10]$, and then applies $t$-out-of-$n$ parallel-repetition concentration. For bipartite pseudotelepathy games the opposite holds: using local assignments valued in $\{0,1/2,1\}$ from the fractional stable set polytope, the paper constructs no-signalling tripartite strategies that win the game with probability one while Eve guesses Alice's output perfectly, so the single-round guessing probability equals $1$. Finally, for the chained Bell expression the paper derives a tight guessing-probability curve against quantum adversaries and the linear formula $P_g=2-w_{NS}/4$ against no-signalling adversaries, displaying the quantitative gap between the two.

Load-bearing premise

The proof rests on the single asserted value in Lemma 1: the almost-no-signalling value of the tripartite guessing game is $(8+10\epsilon)/9$ for $\epsilon\in[0,1/10]$, asserted to follow from a linear program but shown without a dual certificate; if the true optimum is any larger, the exponential rate and the admissible Bell-value range no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For chained-Bell or CHSH-style tests run in sequence, the raw output string carries at least linearly many bits of min-entropy against a no-signalling adversary, so entropy accumulation is linear rather than stuck at a constant.
  • The analytical formulas give protocol designers closed-form rates: $H_{\min}=-\log_2(2-w_{NS}/4)$ against a no-signalling adversary for the three-input chained test, and the corresponding closed form against a quantum adversary.
  • Bipartite pseudotelepathy games satisfying the stated assumptions cannot be used for device-independent randomness against NS adversaries, because maximal violation gives single-round guessing probability $1$.
  • In those pseudotelepathy scenarios, the non-local face of the no-signalling polytope reached by quantum correlations has dimension at least $d-1$, so quantum behaviours sit on positive-dimensional faces rather than vertices.
  • The three-input chained Bell inequality is certified suitable for both quantum and no-signalling security, supporting its use in device-independent randomness and key distribution protocols.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Lemma 1 is supplied with an explicit dual certificate, the same proof template would give ready exponential rates for CHSH and any other monogamous game, enabling a rate comparison among candidate Bell tests.
  • The small-n anomaly reported for $n\le 5$ likely reflects large constants in the exponential bound rather than absence of accumulation; practical protocols may need sufficiently many rounds before the linear behaviour is visible.
  • The normalisation issue in the pseudotelepathy construction suggests the universal attack may need a repaired argument, although the Magic Square case is independently grounded in earlier work.
  • The quantum-versus-no-signalling min-entropy gap for the chained test could serve as a finite-size benchmark for experimental demonstrations of causality-based security.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the accumulation of device-independent quantum randomness against time-ordered no-signalling (TONS) adversaries. It claims that for any non-local game satisfying a monogamy-of-nonlocality property, Eve's guessing probability decays exponentially in the number of rounds n, and it gives a detailed constant computation for the three-input chained Bell game (Theorems 1 and 3, Appendix A). It further claims that most bipartite pseudotelepathy games do not certify randomness against no-signalling adversaries, via an explicit attack construction (Theorems 2 and 6, Appendix B). Finally, it derives an analytical expression for the min-entropy of the three-input chained inequality against quantum and no-signalling adversaries (Appendix C). The main proof strategy is to upper-bound the guessing probability by the value of a related tripartite guessing game, apply no-signalling parallel-repetition theorems, and use a concentration argument on the number of winning rounds.

Significance. If the accumulation theorem were correct, it would resolve an open question about linear min-entropy accumulation in the TONS scenario and would support the practical use of a single pair of devices for device-independent randomness generation against no-signalling adversaries. The analytical min-entropy comparison for the three-input chained inequality in Appendix C is a potentially useful result in its own right, as analytical bounds for this inequality have been lacking. However, the central accumulation theorem is false as stated, and the pseudotelepathy attack construction in Appendix B is not a valid normalized no-signalling strategy. The paper therefore does not currently provide a reliable proof of its advertised claims, although the Appendix C derivation and the clear formulation of the TONS model are valuable elements that could be reused in a corrected version.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A15)] The Azuma-Hoeffding concentration step is invalid for TONS. The TONS constraints in Definition 1, Eq. (2), constrain only the unconditional marginal of each round; they impose no bound on E[V_i | past] for the indicator V_i of a chain-game win in round i. Therefore the drift of the associated martingale is uncontrolled and Eq. (A15) does not follow. This is not a technical gap: the claim of Theorem 3 is false as stated. Consider the following valid TONS strategy for the m=3 chain game. Let H be uniform on {0,1}. If H=0, use the deterministic strategy a_i=b_i=0 for all i, which wins on 8 of the 9 input pairs and hence has per-round value 8/9. If H=1, use per-round F-box behaviors with P(a,b|x,y)=1/2 for a⊕b=1 at (x,y)=(0,2) and a⊕b=0 on the other five constrained pairs, which win with probability 1 and have uniform marginals. Each branch is TONS, so the mixture is TONS, and the per-round Alice-Bob marginal has chain-game value 17/18, which is below the quantum value (4+√3)/6 and hence inside the range stated in Eq. (A17). Yet Eve can simply output the all-zero string: her success probability is (1/2)·1 + (1/2)·2^{-n} = 1/2 + 2^{-(n+1)}, contradicting the asserted P_g(x*,ω*) ≤ e^{-Ω(n)}.
  2. [Appendix A, Lemma 1, Eqs. (A5)-(A6)] The claimed ε-almost-no-signalling value of the guessing game, (8+10ε)/9 for ε ∈ [0,1/10], is asserted to follow from the stated dual LP via strong duality, but no dual feasible solution, no certificate, and no reproducible code are provided. This value is load-bearing: it determines ω_NS(G_g)=8/9, the constant α(G_g) in Lemma 2, the admissible range of ω* in Eq. (A17), and the exponential rate in Eq. (A22). Without a checkable dual solution or an explicit sensitivity argument, the reader cannot verify the claimed constants.
  3. [Theorems 1 and 3, Appendix A] The theorems are stated for every non-local game with the monogamy-of-nonlocality property, but the proof in Appendix A explicitly fixes the m=3 chained game and only asserts without argument that 'the statement applies generally' to all such games. No reduction from an arbitrary monogamy game to the chained game is given, and no definition of the relevant monogamy property is supplied that would make the reduction checkable. The advertised generality of Theorem 1 is therefore unsupported.
  4. [Appendix B, Lemma 4] The bipartite behavior constructed in Lemma 4 is not a normalized probability distribution. Eq. (B8) sets P(f)(u|w,x,y)=1 for every u∈x with ⟨u|w⟩≠0 and 0 otherwise. For a fixed basis x and fixed w∈y, the number of vectors u∈x with ⟨u|w⟩≠0 can be greater than 1, so the sum over u∈x of P(f)(u,w|x,y) equals k·f(w) for k≥1 rather than f(w), and normalization fails. The statement that 'there must exist some u′' such that the conditional is 1 only shows k≥1, not k=1. Consequently the no-signalling attack in Theorem 6, including the perfect-guessing conclusion of Eq. (B4), is not established.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A11)] The text states that the minimum input probability for the tripartite guessing game is π_min = 1/33, but the game has 3^3 = 27 equally likely input triples, so the correct value appears to be 1/27. Since the constant µ in Eq. (A11) depends on π_min, this typo should be corrected and the constants re-derived.
  2. [Definition 2, Eq. (A4)] In the second displayed line of Eq. (A4), the right-hand side sums over a, but for the marginal of Bob's output the sum should be over b. As written, the condition is not the intended almost-no-signalling inequality for Bob's marginal.
  3. [Figure 2] The axes and curves in Figure 2 are not described fully in the text. Please state explicitly in the caption that panel (a) plots P_g(A0|E) versus w_Q, panel (b) plots H_min versus w, and which NPA level is used for the numerical upper-bound curve.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central exponential-decrease claim is derived from external parallel-repetition theorems and an independent LP computation, not from its own assumptions.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain of Theorems 1/3, Theorem 2/6, and Appendix C. The TONS accumulation result is obtained by defining a tripartite guessing game Gg, computing its epsilon-almost-no-signalling value in Lemma 1 as the solution of an LP (Eqs. A5-A6), invoking the external parallel-repetition/concentration results of Holenstein and Buhrman et al. (Lemma 2, Theorem 4), and then applying Azuma-Hoeffding and Chernoff bounds. None of these steps defines the conclusion into the assumptions: the per-round value constraint omega* is an input, and the exponential bound is a derived upper bound on Eve's guessing probability. Lemma 1's value 8/9 is asserted from strong duality without an explicit certificate, and the Azuma step in Eq. (A15) appears to require a conditional-on-past win-rate control that TONS alone may not supply; both are correctness/completeness concerns, not circular reductions. The pseudotelepathy result is explicitly conditional on stated Assumptions 1-2; the self-citation [51] supports the breadth of Assumption 2 but is not the proof's engine, and the construction in Lemmas 3-4 is a direct mathematical argument. I found no 'prediction' that is a renamed fitted parameter, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are the no-signalling model, external parallel-repetition theorems, the unexhibited LP computation in Lemma 1, and the technical Assumptions 1 and 2 for pseudo-telepathy games. The proof of Theorem 2 additionally assumes Lemma 4 constructs a valid no-signalling distribution, which is not established and appears incorrect.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption No-signalling constraints define the adversary model (Definition 1 and Eq. 3).
    The entire security model assumes Alice, Bob, and Eve obey the specified no-signalling conditions, including time-ordered constraints in TONS.
  • standard math Parallel-repetition and concentration theorems of Holenstein and Buhrman et al. (Refs [2,3], Lemma 2 and Theorem 4).
    Used in Appendix A to bound the value of the t-out-of-n repeated guessing game and to extract the exponential decay.
  • standard math Balinski and Nemhauser-Trotter vertex characterization: every vertex of the fractional stable set polytope is {0,1/2,1}-valued (Theorem 7).
    Used in Lemma 3 to obtain an extremal assignment from the quantum assignment.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: the pseudo-telepathy game is with respect to a maximally entangled state of local dimension d >= 3.
    Stated before Theorem 2; limits the theorem to the class of known PT games but is not proven for all PT games.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 2: the set of local quantum contextual correlations lies inside the fractional stable set polytope intersected with normalization hyperplanes.
    A technical condition stated as true for known KS sets and cited to a self-authored reference [51]; the paper does not prove it here.
  • ad hoc to paper Lemma 1's claimed epsilon-almost-no-signalling value of the guessing game Gg is (8+10epsilon)/9.
    The paper says this follows from solving an LP and strong duality, but no explicit dual solution or certificate is provided. The central exponential rate rests on this value.
  • ad hoc to paper The numerical NPA level-2 upper bound matching the analytical curve in Appendix C is treated as evidence of tightness.
    A finite-level numerical SDP match is used to conclude optimality of the candidate quantum strategy, without a formal dual certificate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accumulation of Device-Independent Quantum Randomness against Time-Ordered No-Signalling Adversaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RZTDDMPR

@misc{pith2026250617020,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accumulation of Device-Independent Quantum Randomness against Time-Ordered No-Signalling Adversaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RZTDDMPR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17020}
}
abstract

The question of security of practical device-independent protocols against no-signalling adversaries, the ultimate form of cryptographic security, has remained open. A key ingredient is to identify how the entropy in the raw outputs of a Bell test accumulates over $n$ sequential runs (termed time-ordered no-signalling) against a no-signalling adversary. Previous numerical and analytical investigations for small $n$ ($\leq 5$) had suggested that the min-entropy might not accumulate linearly in contrast to the case of quantum adversaries. Here we point out that despite the findings for small $n$, the min-entropy does in fact accumulate linearly for large $n$. We illustrate the difference in randomness accumulation against quantum and no-signalling adversaries with the paradigmatic example of the Chained Bell test for which we analytically derive the min-entropy. Finally, we illustrate the power of the no-signalling adversary by providing a class of attacks that allow an eavesdropper to perfectly guess the outputs of one player in general bipartite Pseudotelepathy games.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17020 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The no-signalling strategy is illustrated. The bipartite PT game corresponds to a Kochen-Specker set such as the one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The guessing probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bourdoncle, S

    B. Bourdoncle, S. Pironio and A. Acin. Quantifying the randomness of copies of noisy Popescu-Rohrlich correla- tions. Phys. Rev. A 98, 042130 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Buhrman, S

    H. Buhrman, S. Fehr and C. Schaffner. On the Paral- lel Repetition of Multi-Player Games: The No-Signaling Case. 9th Conference on the Theory of Quantum Com- putation, Communication and Cryptography (TQC), pp. 24-35 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Holenstein

    T. Holenstein. Parallel repetition: Simplification and the no-signaling case . Theory of Computing, 5(1):141–172 (2009)

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    T. Vidick. Parallel DIQKD from parallel repetition . arXiv: 1703.08508 (2017)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    R. Jain, C. A. Miller, and Y. Shi. Parallel device- independent quantum key distribution . IEEE Trans. on Inf. Theory 66, 5567–5584 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Jain and S

    R. Jain and S. Kundu. A direct product theorem for quantum communication complexity with applications to device-independent cryptography arXiv:2106.04299 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Lancien and A

    C. Lancien and A. Winter. Parallel repetition and concen- tration for (sub-)no-signalling games via a flexible con- strained de Finetti reduction . Chicago Journal of Theo- retical Computer Science, vol. 2016, no. 11 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Schrijver

    A. Schrijver. Theory of Linear and Integer Programming. Wiley Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization. John Wiley and Sons (1998)

    work page 1998

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Colbeck and R

    R. Colbeck and R. Renner. Free randomness can be am- plified. Nature Physics 8, 450-454 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    Ramanathan, F

    R. Ramanathan, F. G. S. L. Brandao, K. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki and H. Wojewodka. Random- ness Amplification under Minimal Fundamental Assump- tions on the Devices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 230501 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Gosset, and R. K¨ onig.Quantum advantage with shallow circuits . Science 362, 308 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Z. Ji, A. Natarajan, T. Vidick, J. Wright, and H. Yuen. MIP* = RE . Comm. ACM 64, 131 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Renner and S

    R. Renner and S. Wolf. Quantum pseudo-telepathy and the Kochen-Specker theorem . Int. Symp. Information Theory (ISIT 2004), Proc. (Piscataway, NJ:IEEE) p322 (2004)

    2004

  6. [14]

    Ramanathan, M

    R. Ramanathan, M. Horodecki, H. Anwer, S. Pironio, K. Horodecki, M. Gr¨ unfeld, S. Muhammad, M. Bourennane, P. Horodecki. Practical No-Signalling proof Randomness Amplification using Hardy paradoxes and its experimental implementation. arXiv: 1810.11648 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ramanathan, Y

    R. Ramanathan, Y. Liu and S. Pironio. Maximum Quan- tum Non-Locality is not always Sufficient for Device- Independent Randomness Generation . arXiv:2408.03665 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. Acin, D. Cavalcanti, E. Passaro, S. Pironio, and P. Skrzypczyk. Necessary detection efficiencies for secure quantum key distribution and bound randomness . Phys. Rev. A 93, 012319 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Salwey and S

    B. Salwey and S. Wolf. Stronger Attacks on Causality- Based Key Agreement. arXiv:1601.07833 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Arnon-Friedman and A

    R. Arnon-Friedman and A. Ta-Shma. Limits of privacy amplification against nonsignaling memory attacks. Phys. Rev. A, 86:062333 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves. Wringing out bet- ter Bell inequalities . Nuclear Physics B - Proc. Supp. 6(0):211-221 (1989)

    1989

  12. [20]

    Hanggi, R

    E. Hanggi, R. Renner and S. Wolf. The impossibility of non-signaling privacy amplification . Theoretical Com- puter Science, 486(0):27-42 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Ll. Masanes. Universally composable privacy ampli- fication from causality constraints . Phys. Rev. Lett. 102:140501 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    B. Salwey. No-Signalling Attacks and Implications for (Quantum) Nonlocality Distillation . PhD Thesis, USI Lugano (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Masanes, R

    Ll. Masanes, R. Renner, M. Christandl, A. Winter, J. Barrett Full security of quantum key distribution from no-signaling constraints. IEEE Transactions on Informa- tion Theory, 60, 8, pp. 4973-4986 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Ramanathan, J

    R. Ramanathan, J. Tuziemski, M. Horodecki and P. 6 Horodecki. No Quantum Realization of Extremal No- Signaling Boxes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 050401 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    B. Toner. Monogamy of nonlocal quantum correlations . Proc. R. Soc. A 465, pp. 59-69 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Ramanathan and P

    R. Ramanathan and P. Horodecki. Strong monogamies of no-signaling violations for bipartite correlation Bell in- equalities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 210403 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Barrett, L

    J. Barrett, L. Hardy and A. Kent. No Signalling and Quantum Key Distribution . Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010503 (2005)

    2005

  20. [28]

    Popescu and D

    S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich. Quantum nonlocality as an axiom. Found. Phys. 24, 379 (1994)

    1994

  21. [29]

    Barrett, R

    J. Barrett, R. Colbeck, and A. Kent. Unconditionally secure device-independent quantum key distribution with only two devices . Phys. Rev. A 86, 062326 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Ramanathan, Y

    R. Ramanathan, Y. Liu and Y. Wu. Device-Independent Randomness accumulation against Weakly Time-Ordered No-Signalling Adversaries. In preparation

  23. [31]

    Cervero-Martin and M

    E. Cervero-Martin and M. Tomamichel. Device in- dependent security of quantum key distribution from monogamy-of-entanglement games . Quantum 9, 1652 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Brassard, R

    G. Brassard, R. Cleve and A. Tapp. The cost of exactly simulating quantum entanglement with classical commu- nication. Physical Review Letters, 83, 9, 1874 (1999)

    1999

  25. [33]

    G. A. Kavuri et al. Traceable random numbers from a non-local quantum advantage. Nature (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Galliard and S

    V. Galliard and S. Wolf. Pseudo-telepathy, entanglement, and graph colorings. Proc. of ISIT 2002 (2002)

    2002

  27. [35]

    A. Acin, S. Massar, and S. Pironio. Efficient quantum key distribution secure against no-signalling eavesdrop- pers. New Journal of Physics, 8(8):126, (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    The mosek opti- mization toolbox for matlab manual

    MOSEK ApS. The mosek opti- mization toolbox for matlab manual . http://docs.mosek.com/9.0/toolbox/index.html, (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    CVX Research

    Inc. CVX Research. CVX: Matlab software for disciplined convex programming. https://cvxr.com/cvx, (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    D. Dieks. Overlap and distinguishability of quantum states. Physics Letters A, 126(5-6):303–306 (1988)

    1988

  31. [39]

    A. J. P. Garner and M. Araujo. Introducing Moment: A toolkit for semi-definite programming with moment ma- trices. arXiv:2406.15559, (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Grant and S

    M. Grant and S. Boyd. Graph implementations for non- smooth convex programs. In V. Blondel, S. Boyd, and H. Kimura, editors, Recent Advances in Learning and Con- trol, Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, pages 95–110. Springer-Verlag Limited, (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Grasselli, G

    F. Grasselli, G. Murta, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruß. Entropy bounds for multiparty device-independent cryp- tography. PRX Quantum, 2(1):010308, (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    C. W. Helstrom. Quantum detection and estimation the- ory. Journal of Statistical Physics, 1:231–252, (1969)

    1969

  35. [43]

    I. D. Ivanovic. How to differentiate between non- orthogonal states . Physics Letters A, 123(6):257–259, (1987)

    1987

  36. [44]

    J. Lofberg. Yalmip: A toolbox for modeling and optimiza- tion in matlab. In 2004 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (IEEE Cat. No. 04CH37508), pages 284–289. IEEE, (2004)

    2004

  37. [45]

    Masanes, S

    Ll. Masanes, S. Pironio, and A. Ac´ ın. Secure device- independent quantum key distribution with causally inde- pendent measurement devices . Nature communications, 2(1):238, (2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    Navascu´ es, S

    M. Navascu´ es, S. Pironio, and A. Ac´ ın. Bounding the set of quantum correlations . Physical Review Letters, 98(1):010401, (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    Navascu´ es, S

    M. Navascu´ es, S. Pironio, and A. Ac´ ın. A conver- gent hierarchy of semidefinite programs characterizing the set of quantum correlations . New Journal of Physics, 10(7):073013, (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    A. Peres. How to differentiate between non-orthogonal states. Physics Letters A, 128(1-2):19, (1988)

    1988

  41. [49]

    Pironio, A

    S. Pironio, A. Ac´ ın, S. Massar, A B. de La Giroday, D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, S. Olmschenk, D. Hayes, L. Luo, T. A. Manning, and C. Monroe. Random numbers certified by Bell’s theorem. Nature, 464(7291):1021–1024, (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Pironio, M

    S. Pironio, M. Navascu´ es, and A. Acin. Convergent re- laxations of polynomial optimization problems with non- commuting variables . SIAM Journal on Optimization, 20(5):2157–2180, (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    Ramanathan

    R. Ramanathan. Generalised Kochen-Specker Theorem for Finite Non-Deterministic Outcome Assignments . npj Quantum Inf. 10, 99 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Y. Liu, R. Ramanathan, K. Horodecki, M. Rosicka, and P. Horodecki. Optimal measurement structures for con- textuality applications. npj Quantum Inf. 9, 63 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    M. L. Balinski. Integer programming: methods, uses, computations. Manage. Sci.12, 253–313 (1965)

    1965

  46. [54]

    Nemhauser, L

    G. Nemhauser, L. Trotter. Vertex packing: structural properties and algorithms . Math. Program. 8, 232-248 (1975)

    1975

  47. [55]

    Y.-Z. Zhen, Y. Mao, Y.-Z. Zhang, F. Xu, B. C. Sanders. Device-Independent Quantum Key Distribution Based on the Mermin-Peres Magic Square Game . Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 080801 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Mancinska

    L. Mancinska. Maximally entangled states in pseudo- telepathy games . Computing with New Resources, vol. 8808 of LNCS, pp. 200-207, (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    Mancinska, G

    L. Mancinska, G. Scarpa, S. Severini A Generalization of Kochen-Specker Sets Relates Quantum Coloring to Entanglement-Assisted Channel Capacity . IEEE Trans. on Inf. Theory 59 , 6 (2013)

    2013

  50. [58]

    Panconesi and A

    A. Panconesi and A. Srinivasan. Randomized distributed edge coloring via an extension of the Chernoff-Hoeffding bounds. SIAM Journal on Computing 26, 350-368 (1997)

    1997

  51. [59]

    Supic, R

    I. Supic, R. Augusiak, A. Salavrakos, and A. Acin. Self- testing protocols based on the chained Bell inequalities . New Journal of Physics 18, 035013 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    Horodecki and R

    P. Horodecki and R. Ramanathan.The relativistic causal- ity versus no-signaling paradigm for multi-party correla- tions. Nat. Comm. 10, 1701 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Salazar, M

    R. Salazar, M. Kamon, D. Goyeneche, K. Horodecki, D. Saha, R. Ramanathan and P. Horodecki. A No-go theo- rem for device-independent security in relativistic causal theories. Phys. Rev. Research 3, 033146 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Dupuis, O

    F. Dupuis, O. Fawzi and R. Renner. Entropy accumula- tion. Comm. in Math. Phys. 379, pp. 867-913 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Arnon-Friedman, F

    R. Arnon-Friedman, F. Dupuis, O. Fawzi, R. Renner and T. Vidick. Practical device-independent quantum cryptog- raphy via entropy accumulation. Nat. Commun. 9(1):459 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    K. M. Chung, Y. Shi, and X. Wu. General randomness amplification with non-signaling security . https://ix.cs.uoregon.edu/xiaodiwu/papers/csw16.pdf 7 Appendix A: Randomness in the raw output string of honest players against NS adversaries Consider a Bell experiment in which Ali...

  57. [65]

    unambiguous discriminate

    defined in Def. 1. As we have seen, Eve’s guessing probability in the ABNS scenario is greater than or equal to that in the TONS scenario. In this Appendix, we aim to show that the guessing probability against no-signaling adversaries goes down exponentially in n when the marg...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.