Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Zero-Error Nash Equilibrium: Harnessing Nonlocal Correlation in Incomplete Information Games

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs Bayesian games where no classical strategy can guarantee a Nash equilibrium for every type profile, while shared entanglement succeeds with certainty.

desk verdict The zero-error Nash equilibrium framing is genuinely new and the main examples work, but the headline claim about all non-maximally entangled states rests on an unnormalized state and an unproved coverage statement. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02947 v1 pith:34PLDROW submitted 2025-09-03 quant-ph cs.GT

Ambuj , Tushar , Siddharth R. Pandey , Ram Krishna Patra , Anandamay Das Bhowmik , Kuntal Som , Amit Mukherjee This is my paper
classification quant-phcs.GT
keywords zero-errorNashequilibriumBayesiangamesBellnonlocalityquantumentanglementnonlocalGHZstatenoiserobustnesscorrelated
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 imports the zero-error demand from communication theory into game theory: in a Bayesian game with private types, players must land on a pure Nash equilibrium not just in expectation but in every round, for every pair of types. It exhibits three finite games—G5, G6, G7—where this is impossible for any classical strategy built from shared randomness and local rules, yet possible with shared entanglement used as advice. The two-player G5 needs two ebits and type-dependent four-outcome measurements; the tripartite G6 needs a genuinely entangled three-qubit state; the minimal G7, whose strengthened requirement also demands that every equilibrium outcome occur with positive probability, works with every two-qubit pure entangled state except the maximally entangled one. Under depolarizing noise the G5 advantage persists, with quantum error probability strictly below the classical floor of 1/9 inside a finite noise region. If the constructions hold, nonlocal correlations become a resource for flawless coordination under uncertainty, not merely for higher expected payoffs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the equilibrium set S_xy: each type pair defines a stage game whose pure Nash equilibria are exactly the listed action pairs. Classical feasibility then becomes a local hidden-variable question — does a shared variable λ with functions f(x,λ), g(y,λ) produce outputs inside S_xy for all x,y? — which turns coordination into a nonlocal game. The quantum machinery is type-dependent local projective measurement on a shared entangled state: in G5, four-outcome projectors built from Pauli operators chosen by type, applied on two ebits; in G6, X- or Y-basis measurement on a tripartite genuinely entangled state according to each player's type; in G7, measurements in bases p

What would settle it

Compute the norm of the Appendix C state for generic γ, δ; a value other than 1 means the written strategy does not define a valid quantum state. For the universality claim, check whether every two-qubit pure entangled state with Schmidt coefficients (cos θ, sin θ), θ ≠ π/4, is locally unitary equivalent to some normalized member of that family; a single counterexample would falsify the 'except maximally entangled' statement. A direct experiment on G7 with any non-maximally entangled two-qubit state would settle it: if a non-equilibrium outcome occurs with positive probability for some type pa

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that zero-error Nash equilibrium coordination — landing on a pure equilibrium for every type realization — is classically impossible but quantum-feasible. In G5, every local hidden-variable strategy contradicts the equilibrium table, while two ebits plus type-dependent four-outcome measurements succeed. In G6, a genuinely entangled three-qubit state succeeds where no classical strategy does. In G7, with the strengthened condition that non-equilibria have probability zero and all equilibria positive probability, every two-qubit pure entangled state except the maximally entangled one works. Under depolarizing noise in G5, the quantum strategy's error stays below the classi

Load-bearing premise

The 'except maximally entangled' claim for G7 rests on the unproven premise that the state family in Appendix C (parameterized by angles γ, δ, η, κ) covers, up to local unitaries, every two-qubit pure entangled state that is not maximally entangled — and the displayed formula is not normalized as written.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For G5, G6, and G7, zero-error equilibrium coordination is classically infeasible but quantum-feasible, turning nonlocal correlations into a feasibility resource rather than a payoff improvement.
  • In G7, every two-qubit pure entangled state except the maximally entangled one succeeds under the strengthened zero-error condition, so the resource ordering is inverted relative to entanglement amount.
  • The G5 strategy succeeds with two ebits and type-dependent four-outcome measurements; the G6 strategy succeeds with a tripartite genuinely entangled state measured in X or Y bases.
  • Under depolarizing noise on both the shared state and measurements, the G5 quantum strategy keeps error probability strictly below the classical lower bound of 1/9 whenever ϵs(ϵm−1)^2 − (ϵm−2)ϵm < 2/9.
  • The framework imports zero-error communication thinking into game theory: equilibrium attainability can be certified exactly, not just in expectation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Likely extension: the G7 strategy is effectively a nonlocality argument without inequalities embedded in a game; any two-party nonlocal correlation, including no-signaling correlations beyond quantum theory, would then yield a zero-error coordination game of the same shape.
  • Likely extension: the strengthened condition that all equilibrium outcomes have positive probability turns zero-error coordination into a support-preservation task, so the construction may connect to self-testing and fine-grained uncertainty relations.
  • Possible next step: define a zero-error coordination capacity for a shared state — the family of Bayesian games it can solve perfectly — with the G5 depolarizing-noise threshold as the first quantitative data point.
  • Possible next step: extend from pure to mixed Nash equilibria or to equilibrium refinements, where quantum correlation may change which refinements are attainable.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces zero-error Nash equilibrium coordination for finite Bayesian games: players with private types must, for every realized type profile, output a pure Nash equilibrium of the underlying stage game using only pre-shared advice and no communication. Three constructions are presented: G5, a two-player game with 3 types and 4 actions each; G6, a three-player game with 2 types and 2 actions each; and G7, a minimal two-player game with 2 types and 2 actions each, under a strengthened condition requiring every equilibrium outcome to occur with nonzero probability. The paper claims that no classical local-hidden-variable strategy achieves zero-error coordination in G5, G6, or G7, while specific entangled strategies do, and that in G7 every non-maximally-entangled two-qubit pure state suffices. Depolarizing noise is analyzed for G5, with a claimed threshold below which the quantum strategy outperforms all classical strategies.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the paper provides a clean operational bridge between Shannon's zero-error paradigm, Bayesian game theory, and Bell nonlocality. The games are concrete and the G7 universality claim is striking. Strengths include the explicit construction of finite games where the zero-error requirement is exactly a Bell-type condition, and the noise analysis which gives a falsifiable threshold. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or code, so the burden of verification falls on the detailed case analyses. The conceptual framework is interesting and likely useful even if the universality claim needs to be weakened.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III.A] The proof that no classical strategy succeeds in G5 is incomplete. The text works through the branch fλ(x1)=1 and gλ(y3)=1 in detail, then states that the same contradiction arises for gλ(y3)=2 and that 'starting with any admissible value fλ(x1) ∈ {1,2,3,4}' similar dependency chains lead to contradictions. These remaining branches are not shown. Since the no-classical claim is load-bearing for the paper's central message, all 4×2 initial branches (and the intermediate constraints) must be covered explicitly, or an exhaustive case argument must be provided.
  2. [Section III.B] The quantum strategy for G5 is asserted to work without verification. After defining the projectors P1,...,P4 and the type-dependent operators M,M′, the text states 'Consequently, for every type pair (xi,yj), the resulting joint output lies within the prescribed set Sij'. No calculation or table is given for the nine type pairs. A verification table showing, for each (xi,yj), the support of the measurement distribution on A×B and its containment in Sij is necessary to substantiate the quantum-advantage claim.
  3. [Appendix C] The displayed two-qubit state is not normalized. With u=tan(γ/2) and v=tan(δ/2), the squared norm of the numerator is 1+u²+v², while the displayed denominator squared is 1+u²v². These agree only in degenerate cases (u=0 or v=0). Hence the state |ψ⟩ as written is not a valid quantum state for generic γ,δ∈(0,π), and the strategy in Appendix C is not well-defined. The normalization denominator must be corrected, or the state rewritten with coefficients satisfying the correct norm.
  4. [Section V and Appendix C] Even after correcting the normalization, the claimed universality of G7 is unsupported. The paper asserts that every non-maximally-entangled two-qubit pure state, up to local unitary, is represented by the family in Appendix C, and that the stated measurements (X-basis, {|a0⟩,|a1⟩}, {|b0⟩,|b1⟩}) reproduce exactly the support conditions in Table II with all allowed outcomes having nonzero probability. No proof of this coverage is provided; the citations [43–47] do not by themselves establish the parameterization cover all Schmidt angles θ∈(0,π/4), nor do they verify the support and positivity conditions for every member of the family. Without this, the headline statement in Section V is not established.
  5. [Appendix B] The proof of classical impossibility for G7 only treats the specific assignment f(x2)=1, g(y2)=2 and then says 'a similar contradiction arises for all possible deterministic combinations.' There are 2^2·2^2=16 deterministic assignments; the proof should either enumerate all 16 cases or provide a symmetry/compact argument that covers them. As it stands, the no-classical result for G7 is not fully demonstrated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1 / Appendix A] The layout of Fig. 1 is difficult to parse: in the provided text, cells labeled 'All 8 actions' appear in the same row/column as cells for which Appendix A claims only four specific triples are allowed. Please redraw the figure as an unambiguous 2×2 table for each z-value, with each cell explicitly labeled, so the proof in Appendix A can be checked against the displayed sets.
  2. [Section VI] The error-probability formula P((a,b)∉Sij | xi,yj) = 1/2[ϵs(ϵm−1)²−(ϵm−2)ϵm] is stated without derivation. The claim that classical strategies have error probability at least 1/9 also assumes a prior over the nine type pairs; this prior should be stated explicitly and the derivation of the formula should be included.
  3. [Appendix C] The citations [43–47] are grouped together at the end of the appendix without indicating which cited result establishes which step (normalization, coverage, support, or positivity). Please specify the role of each reference or provide direct derivations.
  4. [General] There are several typographical issues, e.g., 'equilibirum' and 'T urn'/'V ariational' in the introduction, and unnumbered displayed equations. Adding equation numbers would make the cross-referencing in a revised version much easier.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the games are explicit Bell-type constructions with case-analysis proofs of classical impossibility; self-citations are background. The G7 universality claim has a rigor gap (unnormalized state, asserted coverage), but that is a correctness issue, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. G5, G6 and G7 are defined by explicit payoff tables; for each, the claim that no LHV strategy achieves zero-error Nash equilibrium coordination is supported by direct case analysis (Section III.A, Appendix A, Appendix B), not by the definition of the game. The quantum strategies are stated explicitly (Section III.B: |φ+>⊗2 with projectors P1..P4; Section IV: GHZ with X/Y measurements; Appendix C: a two-qubit family). The fact that the games were motivated by Bell/Hardy arguments (Section VII) is a construction strategy, not an equivalence of inputs and outputs: the no-classical proofs are nontrivial and independent of the quantum strategies. Self-citations [14], [15], [30] are used only as background on zero-error communication and Bayesian-game nonlocality; they do not carry the central claims. No parameter is fitted and then renamed a prediction. The one load-bearing weakness is in Section V/Appendix C, where the abstract's 'every two-qubit pure entangled state except maximally one' rests on the unproved premise that the displayed family covers all such states up to local unitaries, and the displayed state is not normalized: for u=tan(γ/2), v=tan(δ/2), ||ψ||^2=(u^2+v^2+1)/(1+u^2v^2), which equals 1 only for u=v=0. The sentence 'This quantum strategy... leads to the satisfaction... [43–47]' delegates the needed verification to citations rather than proving it. That is an omitted proof/technical error and a correctness risk, but it is not a circular reduction: the strategy is not defined in terms of the game's equilibrium sets, nor is the game fitted to the strategy's outputs. Hence the circularity score remains low.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data. The main axioms are the local-hidden-variable model of classical strategies, the payoff-equivalence construction that identifies allowed outputs with Nash equilibria, and the inherited Hardy universality for non-maximally entangled two-qubit states. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Classical strategies in a zero-error Bayesian game are exactly local hidden-variable models: shared lambda and local response functions f, g, with no communication after types are received.
    Section III A formalizes this; the impossibility proofs for G5, G6, and G7 are relative to this model, excluding sequential communication or non-quantum nonlocal boxes.
  • domain assumption The stage-game payoff structure, payoff 1 exactly on the allowed set S_ij and 0 otherwise, makes every allowed action profile a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium.
    Section II and the game definitions; this equivalence is what lets a nonlocal game be described as Nash equilibrium coordination.
  • domain assumption Hardy's result that every non-maximally entangled two-qubit pure state can exhibit Hardy-type nonlocality is inherited without proof.
    Appendix C cites references [43-47] and only sketches one parameter family; the universal 'every state except maximally entangled' claim is not derived in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zero-Error Nash Equilibrium: Harnessing Nonlocal Correlation in Incomplete Information Games." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/34PLDROW

@misc{pith2026250902947,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zero-Error Nash Equilibrium: Harnessing Nonlocal Correlation in Incomplete Information Games},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/34PLDROW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02947}
}
read the original abstract

Claude Shannon's zero-error communication paradigm reshaped our understanding of fault-tolerant information transfer. Here, we adapt this notion into game theory with incomplete information. We ask: can players with private information coordinate on a Nash equilibrium with zero probability of error? We identify Bayesian games in which such coordination is impossible classically, yet achievable by harnessing Bell nonlocal correlations. We formalize this requirement as zero-error Nash equilibrium coordination, establishing a new bridge between information theory, game theory, and quantum nonlocality. Furthermore, we construct a tripartite Bayesian game that admits zero-error Nash equilibrium coordination with genuine entanglement, and a two-player game where a stronger notion of coordination can be achieved using every two-qubit pure entangled state except the maximally one. Crucially, the advantage persists under experimentally relevant noise, demonstrating nonlocality as a robust resource for near-zero error decision-making under uncertainty.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02947 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. provides a compact representation of the structure of G6. Each subtable corresponds to a fixed type zk for Char￾lie and displays the utility structure across all combinations of types xi and yj for Alice and Bob. For each type triple (xi , yj , zk), a subset Sijk ⊆ A × B × C of action profiles is specified. If the players select an action profile belonging to Sijk, they each receive a payoff of 1; otherwise, the pay… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: This plot shows the error probability as a gradient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zero-Error Nash Equilibrium: Harnessing Nonlocal Correlation in Incomplete Information Games

    and correlated Nash equilibrium in Bayesian games [2–7] have profoundly shaped our understanding of communication and decision-making. Yet, when reconsidered from a new per- spective, these classical ideas can reveal surprising synergies. This paper presents one such union: we ask what happens when players in a Bayesian game are required to coordinate on ...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    • Subcase B2: g(y2) = 2 , h(z2) = 1

    Contradiction. • Subcase B2: g(y2) = 2 , h(z2) = 1 . At (x2, y2, z1), (g, h) = (2 , 2) forces (2, 2, 2), so f (x2) = 2 . At (x2, y1, z2), (g, h) = (2, 1) forces (1, 2, 1), so f (x2) =

    work page

  3. [3]

    Step 2: f (x1) = 2 Assume a local hidden-variable model with shared λ and deterministic response functions a = f (xi, λ), b = g(yj, λ), c = h(zk, λ)

    Contradiction. Step 2: f (x1) = 2 Assume a local hidden-variable model with shared λ and deterministic response functions a = f (xi, λ), b = g(yj, λ), c = h(zk, λ). Fix λ and write f (xi), g(yj), h(zk). We now show that any assignment with f (x1) = 2 leads to a violation of the Nash-equilibrium constraints in Fig. 1. At (x1, y1, z1), Fig. 1(a) gives S1,1,...

    work page

  4. [4]

    1(b) gives S1,2,2 = {(1, 1, 2), (1, 2, 1), (2, 1, 1), (2, 2, 2)}

    At (x1, y2, z2), Fig. 1(b) gives S1,2,2 = {(1, 1, 2), (1, 2, 1), (2, 1, 1), (2, 2, 2)}. With f (x1) = 2 , the only candidates are (2, 1, 1) or (2, 2, 2). Hence (g(y2), h(z2)) = (1, 1) or (2, 2)

    work page

  5. [5]

    At (x2, y2, z1), the allowed four are again {(1, 1, 2), (1, 2, 1), (2, 1, 1), (2, 2, 2)}

    Subcase A1: g(y2) = 1 , h (z2) = 1 . At (x2, y2, z1), the allowed four are again {(1, 1, 2), (1, 2, 1), (2, 1, 1), (2, 2, 2)}. Since (g, h) = (1 , 2), the only fit is (1, 1, 2), so f (x2) = 1 . But at (x2, y1, z2), the same four set with (g, h) = (1 , 1) forces (2, 1, 1), so f (x2) = 2 . Contradiction

    work page

  6. [6]

    At (x2, y2, z1), (g, h) = (2 , 2) forces (2, 2, 2), so f (x2) = 2

    Subcase A2: g(y2) = 2 , h(z2) = 2 . At (x2, y2, z1), (g, h) = (2 , 2) forces (2, 2, 2), so f (x2) = 2 . At (x2, y1, z2), (g, h) = (1 , 2) forces f (x2) = 1 . Con- tradiction. Case B: g(y1) = 2, h(z1) = 1

    work page

  7. [7]

    With f (x1) = 2, the only options are (2, 1, 1) or (2, 2, 2), so (g(y2), h(z2)) = (1, 1) or (2, 2)

    At (x1, y2, z2), the same four {(1, 1, 2), (1, 2, 1), (2, 1, 1), (2, 2, 2)} appear. With f (x1) = 2, the only options are (2, 1, 1) or (2, 2, 2), so (g(y2), h(z2)) = (1, 1) or (2, 2)

    work page

  8. [8]

    At (x2, y2, z1), (g, h) = (1 , 1) forces (2, 1, 1) implies f (x2) = 2

    Subcase B1: g(y2) = 1 , h(z2) = 1 . At (x2, y2, z1), (g, h) = (1 , 1) forces (2, 1, 1) implies f (x2) = 2 . At (x2, y1, z2), (g, h) = (2 , 1) forces (1, 2, 1) implies f (x2) = 1. Contradiction

    work page

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    At (x2, y2, z1), (g, h) = (2 , 1) forces (1, 2, 1) implies f (x2) = 1

    Subcase B2: g(y2) = 2 , h(z2) = 2 . At (x2, y2, z1), (g, h) = (2 , 1) forces (1, 2, 1) implies f (x2) = 1 . At (x2, y1, z2), (g, h) = (2 , 2) forces (2, 2, 2) implies f (x2) = 2. Contradiction. Therefore no assignment with f (x1) equals to 1 or 2 can satisfy all cells of Fig. ...

  2. [10]

    C. Shannon. The zero error capacity of a noisy channel. IRE Transactions on Information Theory , 2(3):8–19, 1956. doi: 10.1109/TIT.1956.1056798

    1956

  3. [11]

    John F. Nash. Equilibrium points in ¡i¿n¡/i¿-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 36(1):48– 49, 1950. doi:10.1073/pnas.36.1.48. URL https://www. pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.36.1.48

    1950 doi

  4. [12]

    Non-cooperative games

    John Nash. Non-cooperative games. The Annals of Math- ematics, 54(2):286, September 1951. ISSN 0003-486X. doi:10.2307/1969529. URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 2307/1969529

    1951 doi

  5. [13]

    bayesian

    John C. Harsanyi. Games with incomplete information played by “bayesian” players, i–iii part i. the basic model. Manage- ment Science , 14(3):159–182, November 1967. ISSN 1526-

    1967

  6. [14]

    Ad- vantage of hardy’s nonlocal correlation in reverse zero-error channel coding

    Mir Alimuddin, Ananya Chakraborty, Govind Lal Sidhardh, Ram Krishna Patra, Samrat Sen, Snehasish Roy Chowd- hury, Sahil Gopalkrishna Naik, and Manik Banik. Ad- vantage of hardy’s nonlocal correlation in reverse zero-error channel coding. Phys. Rev. A , 108:052430, Nov 2023. do...

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    bayesian

    John C. Harsanyi. Games with incomplete information played by “bayesian” players part ii. bayesian equilibrium points.Man- agement Science, 14(5):320–334, January 1968. ISSN 1526-

    1968

  8. [16]

    URL http://dx.doi

    doi:10.1287/mnsc.14.5.320. URL http://dx.doi. org/10.1287/mnsc.14.5.320

    doi

  9. [17]

    Harsanyi

    John C. Harsanyi. Games with incomplete information played by ‘bayesian’ players, part iii. the basic probability distribu- tion of the game. Management Science, 14(7):486–502, March

  10. [18]

    J. S. Bell. On the einstein podolsky rosen para- dox. Physics Physique Fizika , 1:195–200, Nov

  11. [19]

    Robert J. Aumann. Subjectivity and correlation in ran- domized strategies. Journal of Mathematical Economics , 1(1):67–96, March 1974. ISSN 0304-4068. doi: 10.1016/0304-4068(74)90037-8. URL http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/0304-4068(74)90037-8

    1974 doi

  12. [20]

    C. E. Shannon. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3):379–423, 1948. doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

    1948

  13. [21]

    Computability of the zero- error capacity with kolmogorov oracle

    Holger Boche and Christian Deppe. Computability of the zero- error capacity with kolmogorov oracle. In 2020 IEEE Interna- tional Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) , pages 2020– 2025, 2020. doi:10.1109/ISIT44484.2020.9173984

    2020

  14. [22]

    Computability of the zero-error capacity of noisy channels

    Holger Boche and Christian Deppe. Computability of the zero-error capacity of noisy channels. In 2021 IEEE In- formation Theory Workshop (ITW) , pages 1–6, 2021. doi: 10.1109/ITW48936.2021.9611383

    2021

  15. [23]

    Cubitt, Debbie Leung, William Matthews, and Andreas Winter

    Toby S. Cubitt, Debbie Leung, William Matthews, and Andreas Winter. Improving zero-error classical com- munication with entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 104: 230503, Jun 2010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.230503. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.104.230503

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    Cubitt, Debbie Leung, William Matthews, and Andreas Winter

    Toby S. Cubitt, Debbie Leung, William Matthews, and Andreas Winter. Zero-error channel capacity and simulation assisted by non-local correlations. IEEE Transactions on Information The- ory, 57(8):5509–5523, 2011. doi:10.1109/TIT.2011.2159047

    2011

  17. [25]

    Contextuality in entanglement-assisted one-shot classical communication

    Shiv Akshar Yadavalli and Ravi Kunjwal. Contextuality in entanglement-assisted one-shot classical communication. Quantum, 6:839, October 2022. ISSN 2521-327X. doi: 10.22331/q-2022-10-13-839. URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.22331/q-2022-10-13-839

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Flitney and Derek Abbott

    Adrian P. Flitney and Derek Abbott. Advantage of a quantum player over a classical one in 2 × 2 quantum games. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Se- ries A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 459 (2038):2463–2474, October 2003. ISSN 1471-2946. doi: 10.1...

  19. [27]

    Nonlocality-assisted enhance- ment of error-free communication in noisy classical channels,

    Kunika Agarwal, Sahil Gopalkrishna Naik, Ananya Chakraborty, Samrat Sen, Pratik Ghosal, Biswajit Paul, Manik Banik, and Ram Krishna Patra. Nonlocality-assisted enhance- ment of error-free communication in noisy classical channels,

  20. [28]

    Non- locality and conflicting interest games

    Anna Pappa, Niraj Kumar, Thomas Lawson, Miklos Santha, Shengyu Zhang, Eleni Diamanti, and Iordanis Kerenidis. Non- locality and conflicting interest games. Phys. Rev. Lett., 114: 020401, Jan 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.020401. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRe...

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    Robert J. Aumann. Correlated equilibrium as an expression of bayesian rationality. Econometrica, 55(1):1, January 1987. ISSN 0012-9682. doi:10.2307/1911154. URL http://dx. doi.org/10.2307/1911154

    1987 doi

  22. [30]

    Robert J. Aumann. Agreeing to disagree. The Annals of Statistics, 4(6), November 1976. ISSN 0090-5364. doi: 10.1214/aos/1176343654. URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1214/aos/1176343654

    1976

  23. [31]

    Strong quantum solutions in conflicting-interest bayesian games

    Ashutosh Rai and Goutam Paul. Strong quantum solutions in conflicting-interest bayesian games. Phys. Rev. A , 96: 042340, Oct 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.96.042340. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 96.042340

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    Belief-invariant and quan- tum equilibria in games of incomplete information

    Vincenzo Auletta, Diodato Ferraioli, Ashutosh Rai, Gianni- cola Scarpa, and Andreas Winter. Belief-invariant and quan- tum equilibria in games of incomplete information. Theoret- ical Computer Science , 895:151–177, December 2021. ISSN 0304-3975. doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2021.09.041....

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    Bell nonlocal- ity

    Nicolas Brunner, Daniel Cavalcanti, Stefano Pironio, Va- lerio Scarani, and Stephanie Wehner. Bell nonlocal- ity. Rev. Mod. Phys. , 86:419–478, Apr 2014. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.86.419. URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.86.419

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Exper- imental test of bell’s inequalities using time-varying ana- lyzers

    Alain Aspect, Jean Dalibard, and G ´erard Roger. Exper- imental test of bell’s inequalities using time-varying ana- lyzers. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 49:1804–1807, Dec 1982. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804. URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804

    1982 doi

  27. [35]

    Hensen, H

    B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dr ´eau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abell ´an, W. Amaya, V . Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson. Loophole-free bell ...

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    Marissa Giustina, Marijn A. M. Versteegh, S ¨oren Wengerowsky, Johannes Handsteiner, Armin Hochrainer, Kevin Phelan, Fabian Steinlechner, Johannes Kofler, Jan- ˚Ake Larsson, Carlos Abell ´an, Waldimar Amaya, Valerio Pruneri, Morgan W. Mitchell, J ¨orn Beyer, Thomas Ger- rits, ...

    2015

  29. [37]

    Shalm, Evan Meyer-Scott, Bradley G

    Lynden K. Shalm, Evan Meyer-Scott, Bradley G. Christensen, Peter Bierhorst, Michael A. Wayne, Martin J. Stevens, Thomas Gerrits, Scott Glancy, Deny R. Hamel, Michael S. Allman, Kevin J. Coakley, Shellee D. Dyer, Carson Hodge, Adriana E. Lita, Varun B. Verma, Camilla Lambrocco,...

    2015

  30. [38]

    Quan- tum games and quantum strategies

    Jens Eisert, Martin Wilkens, and Maciej Lewenstein. Quan- tum games and quantum strategies. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 83: 3077–3080, Oct 1999. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3077. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.83.3077

    1999 doi

  31. [39]

    David A. Meyer. Quantum strategies. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 82: 1052–1055, Feb 1999. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.1052. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.82.1052

    1999 doi

  32. [40]

    Incompatible results of quantum measurements

    Asher Peres. Incompatible results of quantum measurements. Physics Letters A , 151(3–4):107–108, December 1990. ISSN 0375-9601. doi:10.1016/0375-9601(90)90172-k. URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(90)90172-K

    1990 doi

  33. [41]

    Connection between bell nonlocality and bayesian game theory

    Nicolas Brunner and Noah Linden. Connection between bell nonlocality and bayesian game theory. Nature Com- munications, 4(1), July 2013. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.1038/ncomms3057. URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/ncomms3057

    2013 doi

  34. [42]

    Greenberger, Michael A

    Daniel M. Greenberger, Michael A. Horne, and Anton Zeilinger. Going beyond bell’s theorem. In Mary C. Kafatos, editor, Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, volume 37 of Fundamental Theories of Physics , pages 69–72. Kluwer Academic / Springer, Dordre...

    1989 doi

  35. [43]

    Nonlo- cal correlations: Fair and unfair strategies in bayesian games

    Arup Roy, Amit Mukherjee, Tamal Guha, Sibasish Ghosh, Some Sankar Bhattacharya, and Manik Banik. Nonlo- cal correlations: Fair and unfair strategies in bayesian games. Phys. Rev. A , 94:032120, Sep 2016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.032120. URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/Ph...

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    Two-Qubit Pure Entanglement as Optimal Social Welfare Re- source in Bayesian Game

    Manik Banik, Some Sankar Bhattacharya, Nirman Ganguly, Tamal Guha, Amit Mukherjee, Ashutosh Rai, and Arup Roy. Two-Qubit Pure Entanglement as Optimal Social Welfare Re- source in Bayesian Game. Quantum, 3:185, September 2019. ISSN 2521-327X. doi:10.22331/q-2019-09-09-185. URL ...

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    Thomas F. Jordan. Testing einstein-podolsky-rosen as- sumptions without inequalities with two photons or parti- cles with spin 1/2. Phys. Rev. A , 50:62–66, Jul 1994. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.50.62. URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.50.62

    1994 doi

  38. [46]

    G. Kar. Testing hardy’s nonlocality with n spin-1/2 par- ticles. Phys. Rev. A , 56:1023–1024, Jul 1997. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.56.1023. URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.56.1023

    1997 doi

  39. [47]

    How quantum information can improve so- cial welfare

    Berry Groisman, Michael Mc Gettrick, Mehdi Mhalla, and Marcin Pawlowski. How quantum information can improve so- cial welfare. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Information Theory, 1(2):445–453, August 2020. ISSN 2641-8770. doi: 10.1109/jsait.2020.3012922. URL http://dx.doi.or...

    2020

  40. [48]

    Abbott, Mehdi Mhalla, and Pierre Pocreau

    Alastair A. Abbott, Mehdi Mhalla, and Pierre Pocreau. Improv- ing social welfare in non-cooperative games with different types of quantum resources. Quantum, 8:1376, June 2024. ISSN 2521-327X. doi:10.22331/q-2024-06-17-1376. URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.22331/q-2024-06-17-1376

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    Three-player conflicting interest games and nonlocality

    Katarzyna Bolonek-Laso ´n. Three-player conflicting interest games and nonlocality. Quantum Information Processing , 16(8), June 2017. ISSN 1573-1332. doi:10.1007/s11128- 017-1635-6. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11128-017-1635-6

    2017 doi

  42. [50]

    Multistage games and bell scenarios with com- munication

    George Moreno, Ranieri Nery, Alberto Palhares, and Rafael Chaves. Multistage games and bell scenarios with com- munication. Phys. Rev. A , 102:042412, Oct 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.102.042412. URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.042412

    2020 doi

  43. [51]

    M.J. Osborne. An Introduction to Game Theory . Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2004. ISBN 9780195128963. URL https:// books.google.co.in/books?id=V2zAkgEACAAJ

    2004

  44. [52]

    Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare

    Bertrand Russell. Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare. George Allen & Unwin, London, 1959

    1959

  45. [53]

    David Mermin

    N. David Mermin. Simple unified form for the major no-hidden-variables theorems. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 65:3373– 3376, Dec 1990. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.3373. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.65.3373

    1990 doi

  46. [55]

    A simple demonstration of bell’s theorem involv- ing two observers and no probabilities or inequalities

    PK Aravind. A simple demonstration of bell’s theorem involv- ing two observers and no probabilities or inequalities. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0206070, 2002

    2002 arXiv

  47. [57]

    Quantum mechanics, local realistic theories, and lorentz-invariant realistic theories

    Lucien Hardy. Quantum mechanics, local realistic theories, and lorentz-invariant realistic theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 68: 2981–2984, May 1992. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.2981. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.68.2981

    1992 doi

  48. [58]

    Nonlocality for two particles without inequal- ities for almost all entangled states

    Lucien Hardy. Nonlocality for two particles without inequal- ities for almost all entangled states. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 71: 1665–1668, Sep 1993. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.1665. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.71.1665

    1993 doi

  49. [61]

    Self-testing quantum states via nonmaximal violation in hardy’s test of nonlocality

    Ashutosh Rai, Matej Pivoluska, Souradeep Sasmal, Manik Banik, Sibasish Ghosh, and Martin Plesch. Self-testing quantum states via nonmaximal violation in hardy’s test of nonlocality. Phys. Rev. A , 105:052227, May 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.052227. URL https://link. aps.or...

    2022 doi

  50. [1964]

    URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

    doi:10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

    doi

  51. [1968]

    doi:10.1287/mnsc.14.7.486

    ISSN 1526-5501. doi:10.1287/mnsc.14.7.486. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.14.7.486

    doi

  52. [2024]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.04779

    arXiv

  53. [5501]

    URL http://dx.doi

    doi:10.1287/mnsc.14.3.159. URL http://dx.doi. org/10.1287/mnsc.14.3.159

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.