Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 62 references

Separable quantum states can produce Bayesian-game equilibria better than every classical correlation.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-07-13 02:43 UTC pith:JBHSZD56

load-bearing objection First clean separation of quantum advantage in Bayesian games from entanglement, via separable cq-states and a mechanism-design construction that also splits local communication equilibria from classical correlated ones.

arxiv 2607.09477 v1 pith:JBHSZD56 submitted 2026-07-10 quant-ph

Playing Bayesian games better with separable quantum states than with any classical correlation

Yaqing Xy Wang , Giannicola Scarpa , Andreas Winter This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 03.65.Ud03.67.Mn02.50.Le
keywords Bayesian gamesquantum correlated equilibriumseparable statespseudo-telepathysocial welfareno-signallingCHSHmagic square
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper shows that quantum advantage in competitive Bayesian games does not require entanglement. Starting from any nonlocal game that admits a perfect quantum (or no-signalling) strategy, the authors build a related Bayesian game whose players receive a fully separable advice state. That state, together with the original measurements, forms a quantum correlated equilibrium whose average payoff equals 1, while every classically correlated equilibrium is forced down near the classical bound of the original game once a penalty parameter is large enough. The construction works because a carefully chosen zero-sum guessing game keeps each player’s type distribution honest; the separable state can still encode the nonlocal winning strategy without leaking the type information that classical shared randomness inevitably reveals. The result therefore places quantum advantage within reach of experimentally simpler resources and simultaneously separates several previously conflated notions of correlated equilibrium.

Core claim

For any quantum pseudo-telepathy game G there exists a Bayesian game eG_Λ and a fully separable advice state ω such that (ω together with Bob’s original measurements) is a quantum correlated equilibrium of social welfare 1, while every classically correlated equilibrium has social welfare at most β(G)+ε once Λ is larger than an explicit threshold.

What carries the argument

The modified Bayesian game eG_Λ whose payoffs combine the original nonlocal winning predicate V with a scaled zero-sum guessing matrix W; the separable cq-state ω that records Alice’s local measurement outcomes while leaving Bob the post-measurement assemblage.

Load-bearing premise

The zero-sum guessing matrix must force every classical equilibrium to keep Alice’s type distribution extremely close to the prior; if a classical strategy could keep the guessing payoff near zero while still correlating the hidden variable with her type, the social-welfare gap would disappear.

What would settle it

For the concrete CHSH- or magic-square-based games, solve the linear program over classically correlated equilibria for large Λ and check whether any equilibrium still exceeds social welfare β(G)+ε.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs Bayesian games of incomplete information from nonlocal (especially pseudo-telepathy) games such that a fully separable classical-quantum advice state yields a quantum correlated equilibrium of social welfare 1, while every classically correlated equilibrium has social welfare at most β(G)+ε once the mechanism parameter Λ is large enough. The construction equips the original winning predicate V with a carefully chosen zero-sum guessing game W that forces Alice’s type distribution to stay near the prior at classical equilibrium; the separable state ω of Eq. (9) together with Bob’s original POVMs then forms a quantum correlated equilibrium (Theorems 3–6). Explicit verification for CHSH (Fig. 4) and linear-programming comparisons for Magic Square, GHZ and CHSH confirm a strict social-welfare gap. The same construction also separates classically correlated equilibria from the larger set of local communication equilibria, refining Forges’ hierarchy (Appendix A).

Significance. The central claim is new and load-bearing for quantum game theory: quantum advantage in competitive Bayesian games need not rely on entanglement. Because the advice states are fully separable (and in the CHSH/GHZ cases extremely simple), the result materially lowers the experimental barrier relative to all prior examples that required highly entangled states. The analytic proofs for every pseudo-telepathy game, the explicit mechanism-design matrix W, the direct four-case verification for CHSH, and the linear-programming confirmation of the predicted gap constitute reproducible, falsifiable evidence. The separation Corr(eG_Λ) ⊊ BI(eG_Λ) ∩ LO is an independent conceptual contribution to the taxonomy of correlated equilibria. These strengths make the manuscript a clear advance for both foundations and near-term quantum advantage.

minor comments (6)
  1. Section IV.A: the Magic-Square linear program is reported only for a limited sample of Λ values because of the 20 736-dimensional strategy space. A short remark on the computational limitation (or a reduced-symmetry formulation) would help readers assess how complete the numerical support is for that example.
  2. The multi-player Theorems 5–6 are stated as “analogues” with proofs omitted. A one-paragraph sketch confirming that the reduction to the two-player case (grouping the classical players) preserves both the equilibrium conditions and the quantitative total-variation bound would remove any residual ambiguity.
  3. Figure captions (Figs. 1–3, 5–6) rely heavily on the label convention introduced at the start of Section IV. Adding a one-line legend inside each panel (or expanding the captions) would make the plots self-contained.
  4. Appendix A introduces eleven notions of equilibrium and leaves several inclusions open. Flagging which separations are already witnessed by the present construction versus which remain open would sharpen the contribution of the appendix.
  5. Notation density is high (e.g., eG_Λ, ω, W, eta(G), au). A short table of symbols early in Section II would improve readability without changing content.
  6. Page 11, Remark after Theorem 3: the phrase “price of privacy, or indeed the price of knowing too much” is evocative but informal; a single clarifying sentence tying it back to the total-variation argument would keep the tone consistent with the rest of the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: constructive reduction of known Bell/pseudo-telepathy advantage to a separable-state Bayesian equilibrium via an explicit mechanism-design matrix W, with self-contained proofs.

full rationale

The central claim (Theorem 3 and multi-player analogues) is obtained by an explicit, parameter-free construction: start from any quantum pseudo-telepathy game G with known classical bound eta(G)<1= au(G), form the Bayesian game eG_\Lambda whose payoffs are V plus a scaled zero-sum guessing game W (Eqs. 5,7,8), and supply the fully separable cq-state ho of Eq. (9) together with Bob’s original POVMs. Equilibrium for Bob follows because W annihilates the prior p and the POVMs are assumed locally optimal for V; equilibrium for Alice follows because V≤1 and the advice already attains 1. The classical upper bound is proved by a quantitative total-variation argument (Lemma 2 + Eq. 6) showing that any correlated equilibrium either keeps Alice’s type distribution within ε of p (hence EV≤eta(G)+ε) or produces a strictly positive W-payoff that Alice can annihilate, destroying equilibrium once Λ is large. All steps are derived inside the paper from the definitions of the sets Corr, Qu, BI, Comm; no quantity is fitted to data, no uniqueness theorem is imported from overlapping authors, and the only self-citations ([3] for the equilibrium taxonomy, [1] for a related separation) are non-load-bearing contextual references. The CHSH verification (Fig. 4 + LP) and the numerical plots for Magic Square/GHZ are likewise independent checks, not circular closures. Hence the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks and exhibits zero circularity of any of the six enumerated kinds.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 3 axioms · 3 invented entities

The paper rests on standard quantum measurement theory, the existence of known pseudo-telepathy games, and classical mechanism-design ideas. The only free parameter is the tunable penalty Λ; the invented objects are the modified games and the explicit separable advice state.

free parameters (1)
  • Λ = any Λ>0; Λ(ε)=∥p∥^{2}/(2ε)(1-1/|X|) for the quantitative bound
    Positive real that scales the zero-sum guessing payoff; chosen large enough so that classical social welfare is forced below β(G)+ε. Not fitted to data but selected by the analyst.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Existence of quantum (or no-signalling) pseudo-telepathy games with τ(G)=1>β(G)
    Invoked at the start of Section III and in Theorems 3–6; supplied by the CHSH, magic-square and GHZ games.
  • standard math Nash’s theorem guaranteeing non-empty Nash(G)
    Used to assert that all equilibrium sets are non-empty (Section II.B).
  • domain assumption Born rule and complete positivity of quantum measurements
    Defines the quantum behaviours Q(a|t) throughout Sections II–IV.
invented entities (3)
  • modified Bayesian game eG_Λ no independent evidence
    purpose: Converts a cooperative nonlocal game into a competitive Bayesian game whose classical equilibria cannot exploit the original quantum correlation without paying a large guessing penalty.
    Defined by the type/action sets and the payoff pair (V-2ΛW,V+ΛW) in Section III; no independent experimental handle outside the paper.
  • zero-sum guessing matrix W no independent evidence
    purpose: Mechanism that forces Alice’s type distribution to stay close to the prior p at equilibrium.
    Explicitly constructed in Eq. (5); positive-semidefinite with kernel spanned by p.
  • separable advice state ω no independent evidence
    purpose: Encodes the post-measurement assemblage of the original entangled strategy so that Bob obtains the correct measurement advice without learning Alice’s type.
    Given by Eq. (9); fully separable by construction.

reviewed 2026-07-13 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Playing Bayesian games better with separable quantum states than with any classical correlation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JBHSZD56

@misc{pith2026260709477,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Playing Bayesian games better with separable quantum states than with any classical correlation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JBHSZD56}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09477}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Bayesian games, also known as games of incomplete information, are a fruitful arena for exploring the impact of correlations on a set of independent agents (players) via the game equilibria to which they give rise. It was realised some time ago that quantum states shared between the players can lead to new and beneficial equilibria, compared to classical correlation. While until now examples of this effect required an entangled state, here we show that even separable states can create new, genuinely quantum equilibria in games, that are advantageous with respect to all classically correlated equilibria. This shows that non-classical correlations beyond entanglement are indeed a resource, even in otherwise entirely classical situations. Our result brings quantum advantage in games significantly closer to possible realisation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09477 by Andreas Winter, Giannicola Scarpa, Yaqing Xy Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Eleven more or less legitimate notions of correlated equilibrium in Bayesian games. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Belief-invariance Out of all possible behaviours, there are sub-categories with particularly desired qualities. Belief-invariant, also called non-signalling, behaviours are those where the distribution of the outputss i (givenr i) reveals no information on any of the other players’ inputsr j (j̸=i). Con- cretely, we callQbelief-invariant for a subsetI⊂[n]...

  2. [2]

    Locality Another important aspect of behaviours is locality. A conditional probability distributionQis calledlocal(or more historically accurate, described by local hidden variables) if the players can 5 locally produce their output given their input as well as a shared random variableλdistributed independently of the inputsraccording to a probability law...

  3. [3]

    For quantum systems, the native description of a mea- surement is a POVM (positive operator valued measure)

    Quantumness Based on the laws of quantum mechanics, we see that it is also possible to generate correlations via quantum states and measurements. For quantum systems, the native description of a mea- surement is a POVM (positive operator valued measure). Consider a quantum stateρacting on a Hilbert spaceH=H 1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Hn that is the tensor product of all...

  4. [4]

    canonical form

    Communication equilibria It may happen that in a game of incomplete information, the players have access to a correla- tion resource that may give them additional information. Operationally, this can be manifested as there being a trusted referee, who privately communicates with all players and shares with them their part of the correlation. The referee t...

  5. [5]

    By definition, all correlated equilibria are belief-invariant, and they also have a canonical form wheresi ∈ S i :=A Ti i

    Correlated equilibria As a special subclass of communication equilibria,(classically) correlated equilibriaare obtained by restricting the correlation to be a shared random variable that is independent of the players’ inputs,i.e.Q 0(s|r) =Q 0(s). By definition, all correlated equilibria are belief-invariant, and they also have a canonical form wheresi ∈ S...

  6. [6]

    The resulting behaviour inherits this product form: Q(a|t) =Q 1(a1|t1)· · ·Q n(an|tn),(2) and we denote the set of behaviours of Nash equilibria Nash(G)⊂Corr(G)

    Nash equilibria Nash equilibriaare obtained by further restrictingQ 0(s)to being a product distribution,Q 0(s) = Q1(s1)· · ·Q n(sn). The resulting behaviour inherits this product form: Q(a|t) =Q 1(a1|t1)· · ·Q n(an|tn),(2) and we denote the set of behaviours of Nash equilibria Nash(G)⊂Corr(G). As a matter of fact, Nash(G)equals the intersection of Corr(G)...

  7. [7]

    Quantum correlated equilibria Directly going to the canonical form (cf. [3]), aquantum correlated equilibriumis given by an n-partite Hilbert spaceH=H 1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Hn, a stateρofHand POVMsM ti = (M ti ai : ai ∈ A i)acting 7 onH i, such that for every playeriand every collection of alternate POVMsM ′ti the following holds: Eui(T, A)≥Eu i(T, A−iA′ i), where ...

  8. [8]

    either P f Pr{F=f} 1 2 ∥p−p f ∥1 > ε

  9. [9]

    Corr(eGΛ) max.V

    or P f Pr{F=f} 1 2 ∥p−p f ∥1 ≤ε. Case 1:For eachF=f, and denotingε f = 1 2 ∥pf −p∥ 1, by sampling bX∼δ x′ f for an appropriate point mass atx ′ f ∈ X, Bob can makeE(W X, bX |F=f)>∆(ε f) := εf ∥p∥2 |X | |X |−1, according to Lemma 2, in particular Eq. (6) in its proof. This impliesEW X, bX ≥P f Pr{F=f}∆(ε f)>∆(ε). Hence, ifΛ≥Λ(ε) := 1 2∆(ε) = ∥p∥2 2ε 1− 1 |...

  10. [10]

    In case of their individual input type being0, they measure their bit in theXbasis and otherwise in theYbasis

    In the quantum strategy, the three players share a tripartite entangled state, the GHZ state: |ψ⟩= 1√ 2(|000⟩+|111⟩). In case of their individual input type being0, they measure their bit in theXbasis and otherwise in theYbasis. With this strategy, the players win the game with probability 1. We apply the multi-player modification to the GHZ game, the res...

  11. [11]

    The optimal quantum strategy of the CHSH game famously beats the classical maximum ex- pected payoff by achieving the Tsirelson bound: τ(CHSH) = cos 2 π 8 ≈0.85

    For example, the players can simply agree beforehand to align their output and only output 0 or 1 together, however, as only three out of four combinations of their possible types yieldx·y= 0, their expected payoff is also 3 4 each: β(CHSH) = 3 4 . The optimal quantum strategy of the CHSH game famously beats the classical maximum ex- pected payoff by achi...

  12. [12]

    We have thus verified that the new advice yields indeed the optimal strategy for Alice, and is hence a quantum correlated equilibrium for the modified game ^CHSH Λ

    Notation:c= cosθ,s= sinθ, whereθ= π 8 . We have thus verified that the new advice yields indeed the optimal strategy for Alice, and is hence a quantum correlated equilibrium for the modified game ^CHSH Λ . Finally, for the optimisation of correlated equilibria, we cannot rely on Theorem 3 as it is not applicable, rather have to do the linear programming f...

  13. [13]

    classical

    This can be reasoned by observing that the maximum payoff from V(a, b, x, y)is 1, while Alice playsx= 0deterministically, she can control the parity of the game unilaterally, and as long as she stays with one deterministica, Bob only needs to correlate to win the original CHSH game, this gives an overall social welfare of1−2Λ.However, as Bob can equally p...

    doi:10.13039/501100011033 2026

  14. [14]

    Abbott, Mehdi Mhalla, and Pierre Pocreau

    Alastair A. Abbott, Mehdi Mhalla, and Pierre Pocreau. Improving social welfare in non-cooperative games with different types of quantum resources.Quantum8:1376, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    P . K. Aravind. Quantum mysteries revisited again.American Journal of Physics72(10):1303–1307, 2004

    2004

  16. [16]

    Belief- Invariant and Quantum Equilibria in Games of Incomplete Information.Theoretical Computer Science 895:151-177, 2021

    Vincenzo Auletta, Diodato Ferraioli, Ashutosh Rai, Giannicola Scarpa, and Andreas Winter. Belief- Invariant and Quantum Equilibria in Games of Incomplete Information.Theoretical Computer Science 895:151-177, 2021

    2021

  17. [17]

    Robert J. Aumann. Subjectivity and correlation in randomized strategies.Journal of Mathematical Eco- nomics1:67-96, 1974

    1974

  18. [18]

    Robert J. Aumann. Correlated equilibrium as an expression of Bayesian rationality.Econometrica55:1- 18, 1987

    1987

  19. [19]

    John S. Bell. On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox.Physics1(3):195-200, 1964

    1964

  20. [20]

    Bennett and Gilles Brassard

    Charles H. Bennett and Gilles Brassard. Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing. In:Proc. International Conference on Computers, Systems & Signal Processing, Bangalore, India, pp. 175-179, 1984

    1984

  21. [21]

    Three-player conflicting interest games and nonlocality.Quantum Informa- tion Processing16:186, 2017

    Katarzyna Bolonek-Laso ´n. Three-player conflicting interest games and nonlocality.Quantum Informa- tion Processing16:186, 2017

    2017

  22. [22]

    Examining the effect of quantum strategies on symmetric conflicting inter- est games.International Journal of Quantum Information15(5):1750033, 2017

    Katarzyna Bolonek-Laso ´n. Examining the effect of quantum strategies on symmetric conflicting inter- est games.International Journal of Quantum Information15(5):1750033, 2017

    2017

  23. [23]

    Bell non- locality.Reviews of Modern Physics86:419-478, 2014

    Nicolas Brunner, Daniel Cavalcanti, Stefano Pironio, Valerio Scarani, and Stephanie Wehner. Bell non- locality.Reviews of Modern Physics86:419-478, 2014

    2014

  24. [24]

    Quantum steering: a review with focus on semidefinite pro- gramming.Reports on Progress in Physics80(2):024001, 2016

    Daniel Cavalcanti and Paul Skrzypczyk. Quantum steering: a review with focus on semidefinite pro- gramming.Reports on Progress in Physics80(2):024001, 2016

    2016

  25. [25]

    Treball Final de Grau en F´ısica (BSc thesis), Department of Physics, Universitat Aut`onoma de Barcelona, June 2021

    Miquel Cerd `a Ramon.Entrelazamiento cu´ antico y teor´ ıa de juegos. Treball Final de Grau en F´ısica (BSc thesis), Department of Physics, Universitat Aut`onoma de Barcelona, June 2021

    2021

  26. [26]

    Quantum advantage for Bayesian games from quantum pseudo-telepathy.In preparation, 2026

    Miquel Cerd `a Ramon and Andreas Winter. Quantum advantage for Bayesian games from quantum pseudo-telepathy.In preparation, 2026

    2026

  27. [27]

    Va ˇsek Chv´atal.Linear Programming. W. H. Freeman, 1983

    1983

  28. [28]

    Clauser, Michael A

    John F. Clauser, Michael A. Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard A. Holt. Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories.Physical Review Letters23:880-884, Oct 1969

    1969

  29. [29]

    Bellefontaine, St

    Samuel Langhorne Clemens, Thomas Jefferson Snodgrass, and Mark Twain.Captain Isaiah Sellers in His Own Words. Bellefontaine, St. Louis MO, 1864

  30. [30]

    Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?Physical Review47:777-780, 1935

    Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?Physical Review47:777-780, 1935

    1935

  31. [31]

    Five Legitimate Definitions of Correlated Equilibrium in Games with Incomplete Information.Theory and Decision35:277-310, 1993

    Franc ¸oise Forges. Five Legitimate Definitions of Correlated Equilibrium in Games with Incomplete Information.Theory and Decision35:277-310, 1993

    1993

  32. [32]

    Correlated Equilibrium in Games with Incomplete Information Revisited.Theory and Decision61:329-344, 2006

    Franc ¸oise Forges. Correlated Equilibrium in Games with Incomplete Information Revisited.Theory and Decision61:329-344, 2006

    2006

  33. [33]

    Bell’s inequality holds for all non-product states.Physics Letters A154(5–6):201-202, 1991

    Nicolas Gisin. Bell’s inequality holds for all non-product states.Physics Letters A154(5–6):201-202, 1991

    1991

  34. [34]

    Greenberger, Michael A

    Daniel M. Greenberger, Michael A. Horne, Abner Shimony, and Anton Zeilinger. Bell’s theorem with- out inequalities.American Journal of Physics58(12):1131-1143, 1990

    1990

  35. [35]

    How Quantum Infor- mation can Improve Social Welfare.IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory1(2):445-453, 2020

    Berry Groisman, Michael McGettrick, Medhi Mhalla, and Marcin Pawłowski. How Quantum Infor- mation can Improve Social Welfare.IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory1(2):445-453, 2020. 23

    2020

  36. [36]

    Games with Incomplete Information Played by ‘Bayesian’ Players. Parts I–III

    John C. Harsanyi, “Games with Incomplete Information Played by ‘Bayesian’ Players. Parts I–III”. Management Science. vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 159-182; vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 320-334; vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 486-502, 1968

    1968

  37. [37]

    Quantum entangle- ment.Reviews of Modern Physics81:865-942,2009

    Ryszard Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki, Michał Horodecki, and Karol Horodecki. Quantum entangle- ment.Reviews of Modern Physics81:865-942,2009

    2009

  38. [38]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006

    Leonid Hurwicz and Stanley Reiter.Designing Economic Mechanisms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006

    2006

  39. [39]

    Correlated equilibria of classical strategic games with quantum signals.Inter- national Journal of Quantum Information03(01):183-188, 2005

    Pierfrancesco La Mura. Correlated equilibria of classical strategic games with quantum signals.Inter- national Journal of Quantum Information03(01):183-188, 2005

    2005

  40. [40]

    Signaling and mediation in games with common interests.Games and Economic Behavior68(2):670-682, 2010

    Ehud Lehrer, Dinah Rosenberg, and Eran Shmaya. Signaling and mediation in games with common interests.Games and Economic Behavior68(2):670-682, 2010

    2010

  41. [41]

    Quantum advantage beyond entanglement in Bayesian game theory.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical57:065303, 2024

    Adam Lowe. Quantum advantage beyond entanglement in Bayesian game theory.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical57:065303, 2024

    2024

  42. [42]

    Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2013

    Michael Maschler, Eilon Solan, and Shmuel Zamir.Game Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2013

    2013

  43. [43]

    David Mermin

    N. David Mermin. Quantum mysteries revisited.American Journal of Physics58(8):731–734, 1990

    1990

  44. [44]

    John F. Nash. Equilibrium points inn-person games.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 36(1):48-49, 1950

    1950

  45. [45]

    On the geometry of Nash equilibria and correlated equilibria.International Journal of Game Theory32:443-453, 2003

    Robert Nau, Sabrina Gomez Canovas, and Pierre Hansen. On the geometry of Nash equilibria and correlated equilibria.International Journal of Game Theory32:443-453, 2003

    2003

  46. [46]

    Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele.Mathematische Annalen100:295-320, 1928

    John von Neumann. Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele.Mathematische Annalen100:295-320, 1928

    1928

  47. [47]

    John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern.Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour, Princeton Uni- versity Press, 1944

    1944

  48. [48]

    Vazirani (eds.).Algorithmic Game Theory

    Noam Nisan, Tim Roughgarden, ´Eva Tardos and Vijay V . Vazirani (eds.).Algorithmic Game Theory. Cambridge University Press, 2007

    2007

  49. [49]

    Nonlocality and conflicting interest games.Physical Review Letters114:020401, Jan 2015

    Anna Pappa, Niraj Kumar, Thomas Lawson, Miklos Santha, Shengyu Zhang, Eleni Diamanti, and Iordanis Kerenidis. Nonlocality and conflicting interest games.Physical Review Letters114:020401, Jan 2015

    2015

  50. [50]

    Incompatible results of quantum measurements.Physics Letters A151(3–4):107-108, 1990

    Asher Peres. Incompatible results of quantum measurements.Physics Letters A151(3–4):107-108, 1990

    1990

  51. [51]

    Generic quantum nonlocality.Physics Letters A166(5-6):293-297, 1992

    Sandu Popescu and Daniel Rohrlich. Generic quantum nonlocality.Physics Letters A166(5-6):293-297, 1992

    1992

  52. [52]

    Quantum nonlocality as an axiom.Foundations of Physics 24(3):379-385, 1994

    Sandu Popescu and Daniel Rohrlich. Quantum nonlocality as an axiom.Foundations of Physics 24(3):379-385, 1994

    1994

  53. [53]

    PhD thesis, University of Michi- gan, 1951

    Howard Raiffa.Arbitration Schemes For Generalized Two-Person Games. PhD thesis, University of Michi- gan, 1951

    1951

  54. [54]

    Oxford Graduate Texts, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2019

    Valerio Scarani.Bell Nonlocality. Oxford Graduate Texts, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2019

    2019

  55. [55]

    Discussion of Probability Relations Between Separated Systems.Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society31(4):555-563, 1935

    Erwin Schr ¨odinger. Discussion of Probability Relations Between Separated Systems.Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society31(4):555-563, 1935

    1935

  56. [56]

    Die gegenw ¨artige Situation in der Quantenmechanik.Naturwissenschaften 23(48):807-821, (49):823-828, (50):844-849, 1935

    Erwin Schr ¨odinger. Die gegenw ¨artige Situation in der Quantenmechanik.Naturwissenschaften 23(48):807-821, (49):823-828, (50):844-849, 1935

    1935

  57. [57]

    MSc thesis, School of Physical Sciences, NISER Bhubaneswar, May 2023

    Muhammed Jabir Thayyil.Quantum Equilibrium in Bayesian Games. MSc thesis, School of Physical Sciences, NISER Bhubaneswar, May 2023. URL: https://idr.niser.ac.in/jspui/handle/123456789/743

    arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Tsirelson

    Boris S. Tsirelson. Quantum generalizations of Bell’s inequality.Letters in Mathematical Physics4(2):93- 100, 1980

    1980

  59. [59]

    Roope Uola, Ana C. S. Costa, H. Chau Nguyen, and Otfried G ¨uhne. Quantum steering.Reviews of Modern Physics92:015001, 2020

    2020

  60. [60]

    Reinhard F. Werner. Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden- variable model.Physical Review A40(8):4277-4281, 1989

    1989

  61. [61]

    Wiseman, Sam J

    Howard M. Wiseman, Sam J. Jones, and Andrew C. Doherty. Steering, Entanglement, Nonlocality, and the EPR Paradox.Physical Review Letters98:140402, 2007; arXiv:quant-ph/0612147

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  62. [62]

    autonomous

    Shengyu Zhang. Quantum Strategic Game Theory. In:Proc. 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2012), 8-10 January 2012, Cambridge MA, pp. 39-59, ACM, New York, 2012. 24 Appendix A: Updates on the hierarchy of legitimate notions of correlated equilibrium in Bayesian games Forges, in her articles on correlated equilibria in Bayesia...

    2012

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 13, 2026.