Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 94 references

This paper defines absolutely maximally contextual correlations (AMCCs)—correlations that are maximally contextual and have uniformly random reduced marginals—and constructs infinite families of them, with PR boxes and GHZ correlations as t

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 ↗

AMCCs are introduced as the correlation-space analogue of absolutely maximally entangled states, with PR boxes, GHZ correlations, and parity/CSP-built families as examples.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection AMCC is a reasonable definition and the parity/CSP constructions are genuinely useful, but the claimed infinite family in Table II is wrong as stated and the GHZ example is garbled. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.02009 v3 pith:4VCIWP3S submitted 2026-01-05 quant-ph

Analogs of absolutely maximally entangled states in nonlocal correlations via the sheaf-theoretic framework and its applications

Nripendra Majumdar , S. Aravinda This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords AMCCcontextual fractionmaximal marginalsPR boxGHZ correlationsparity-check constructionconstraint satisfaction problemrandomness extraction
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 reading

The paper introduces absolutely maximally contextual correlations (AMCCs) as the correlation-side analogue of absolutely maximally entangled states: an (n,m,o) correlation is an AMCC if it is maximally contextual (its contextual fraction is 1) and every marginal over fewer than n parties is uniform. The bipartite PR box and suitably measured tripartite GHZ correlations are shown to be AMCCs, and the paper constructs infinite families using parity-check equations and constraint-satisfaction problems. It also constructs maximally contextual correlations that are not AMCCs, showing that maximal contextuality and maximal marginality are logically independent properties. If these constructions hold, AMCCs give a resource-theoretic counterpart to AME states, with direct applications to device-independent secret sharing and randomness extraction, since every k-party marginal is perfectly uniform.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a definition plus a set of construction theorems: an (n,m,o) correlation is an AMCC precisely when its contextual fraction is 1 (so it is strongly contextual, with no global assignment compatible with its support) and all k-party marginals for k<n are uniform. The paper shows that in the (2,2,2) scenario exactly the eight PR boxes are AMCCs; that GHZ correlations measured in the X/Y bases are (3,2,2) AMCCs; that a parity-check method over GF(2) generates an infinite family of symmetric AMCCs; and that a CSP/SAT method generates both symmetric and asymmetric AMCCs as well as maximally contextual non-AMCCs. It then applies the uniform-marginals proper

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the contextual fraction CF, obtained by decomposing any empirical model as a convex mixture of a noncontextual part and a maximally contextual part; CF=1 means the model is strongly contextual, i.e. no global assignment is compatible with the support. Coupled with this is the maximal-marginal condition that every reduced distribution over fewer than n parties be uniform. For constructions, the parity-check method converts a set of linear equations over GF(2) into Boolean formulas whose joint unsatisfiability certifies CF=1, while the CSP method encodes supports directly as Boolean constraints; both yield probability tables by imposing zero constraints on the no-signa

Load-bearing premise

The key assumption is that certain probability tables with several non-zero entries remain maximally nonclassical—the paper states this for a whole range of parameters but supplies no proof, and a single counterexample in that range would collapse the claimed infinite family.

What would settle it

Evaluate the contextual fraction for the eight-parameter tripartite table at p1=0.25 and p2=p3=...=p8=0.125. In that case every context except the first has full support, and the global assignment with all six observables equal to 0 satisfies the parity constraint of the first context, so the support admits a global section; a linear-programming calculation would then give CF<1, contradicting the paper's claim that CF remains 1 throughout this region.

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

If this is right

  • In any (n,2,2) scenario, a parity-check AMCC gives an all-versus-nothing proof of contextuality while every k-party marginal, k<n, is perfectly uniform, combining logical nonclassicality with maximum local randomness.
  • GHZ correlations with X/Y measurements are AMCCs, so the same correlations that power all-versus-nothing arguments also provide maximal marginal entropy in the tripartite setting.
  • Because every reduced marginal of an AMCC is uniform, the min-entropy of any k<n outputs is k bits, giving a device-independent bound on extractable randomness.
  • The parity-check construction yields AMCCs for any number of parties, including cases like four parties where absolutely maximally entangled quantum states are known not to exist.
  • Maximally contextual non-AMCCs demonstrate that CF=1 does not force uniform marginals, so the two properties are inequivalent resources.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the stated CF=1 region for the eight-parameter table is verified, AMCCs form a continuous family on a face of the no-signaling polytope, which would allow noise-robust interpolation between PR-like correlations; this extends beyond what the paper proves.
  • The non-AMCC maximally contextual correlations may serve as a resource for randomness expansion where the adversary has partial information about outputs; studying their noise tolerance is a natural testable extension.
  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit is that the parity-check AMCC family shadows stabilizer states from quantum error correction, so AMCCs might act as the contextual analogue of quantum error-correcting codes.
  • Since four-party AMCCs exist even though 4-qubit AME states do not, the correlation picture of maximality is richer than the state picture; exploring five and more parties could reveal AMCCs that certify more than any quantum state can.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a correlation-space analogue of absolutely maximally entangled (AME) states, called absolutely maximally contextual correlations (AMCC). An AMCC is defined as a no-signaling empirical model that is maximally contextual (CF=1) and has all marginals over fewer than n parties uniformly random (Defs. 7–8). The PR box is identified as the bipartite AMCC; GHZ correlations and the three-way nonlocal correlations of Ref. [61] are proposed as tripartite examples. The paper then presents a parity-check construction and a CSP-based construction for AMCCs and non-AMCCs, claims an eight-parameter family (hence infinitely many AMCCs) via Table II, and sketches applications to secret sharing and randomness extraction.

Significance. If the technical claims were correct, the paper would provide a useful conceptual bridge between entanglement theory and the resource theory of contextuality, with potential applications to device-independent randomness and secret sharing. The core definition is natural and builds directly on the established contextual-fraction framework; the parity-check construction gives a concrete finite family of strongly contextual, uniformly-marginal models, and Eq. (22) is an explicit valid AMCC. However, the claimed infinite family rests on a parameter-range assertion that is demonstrably false, and the GHZ example as written is not a valid probability distribution. These are load-bearing issues for the paper's central claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III.A, Table II] The statement that 'if one parameter is set to 0.25, the remaining seven can take any values in [0,0.125], and the CF remains 1' is false. Take p1=0.25 and p2=...=p8=0.1. In Table II each row with parameter p_i has support equal to an even-parity set if p_i=0.25, an odd-parity set if p_i=0, and all eight sections if 0<p_i<0.25. With the chosen values, only the (0,0,0) context imposes a parity constraint; contexts (0,0,1) through (1,1,1) have full support. The global assignment X1=X1'=X2=X2'=X3=X3'=0 satisfies the remaining constraint, so S_e is nonempty. By the paper's own equivalence strong contextuality ⇔ CF=1, CF<1. Hence the claimed eight-parameter/infinite AMCC family is unsupported. The reported CF values are also given without proof or reproducible code.
  2. [Eq. (20), Section III.A] The GHZ correlation is not a valid probability distribution as written and does not demonstrate CF=1. If the second branch is read as assigning probability 1/8 uniformly to every outcome in the four listed contexts, those contexts impose no possibilistic constraint; the remaining four parity equations then admit a global solution, e.g. X1=1, X1'=1, X2=0, X2'=0, X3=0, X3'=1, so the support has a global section and CF<1. If the branch is instead read as adding 1/8 to the parity-satisfying outcomes in those contexts, the contexts do not normalize (total 3/2). The standard GHZ correlation, with parity constraints in all eight contexts, should be written explicitly to support the claimed AMCC status.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV.B, paragraph before Eq. (35)] The explanatory argument that combining the first and second parity equations 'yields X3 = X3′' is incorrect: adding the two equations gives X3 ⊕ X3′ = 1, i.e. X3 ≠ X3′, which is not a contradiction. The contradiction only appears after summing all eight equations, as in Eq. (35).
  2. [Section IV.C] The numerical claims — 'exactly 240' AMCCs among 256 parity assignments and '2,401' CSP Boolean formulas — are stated without proof, code, or a reproducible enumeration procedure. These counts should be backed by a derivation or an explicit computational artifact.
  3. [Section V.B] The randomness-extraction section contains undefined notation (Hmin(xy|XY)) and Eq. (45) does not follow from Eq. (44). The correct statement is about k-party output min-entropy given inputs; the 'global min-entropy' bound is not established.
  4. [Section V.A] The secret-sharing protocol is only a sketch. No adversary model, correctness condition, or security proof is given; the statement that the secret is recoverable only when all players cooperate is not derived from the AMCC properties.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos and presentation issues, including 'Secrete Sharing', 'Popescu-Rohrich', inconsistent notation for measurement settings, and the ambiguous sentence in Section III.A: 'if two parameters are fixed to any values (including zero) within the allowed range, the CF is always 1.' This needs rewording and proof.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: AMCC definition is applied to explicit constructions, supported by external CF theorem and direct parity contradictions; the sole self-citation is future-work only.

full rationale

The derivation chain is definition-plus-construction rather than a fit or a self-referential prediction. Definition 8 imports two external notions: contextual fraction (with CF=1 characterizing maximal contextuality, cited to Ref. [37]) and uniform marginals (Eq. 16). The bipartite PR-box and GHZ examples are verified explicitly by writing the distributions and marginals. The parity-check construction proves strong contextuality directly by deriving a modulo-2 contradiction (0 ≡ 1) from the parity equations, so Se=∅; maximal marginality is checked from the symmetric support structure. The CSP construction selects Boolean formulae and independently tests unsatisfiability; the resulting probability tables are then constrained by stated parameter bounds. No parameter is fitted to a target AMCC label and then presented as a prediction. The only self-citation (Ref. [66], by coauthor S. Aravinda) appears in the conclusion as a possible future extension and is not load-bearing. The unproved parameter-range assertion in Section III.A ('if one parameter is set to 0.25, the remaining seven can take any values in [0,0.125], and the CF remains 1') is a potential correctness gap, not a circular reduction: even if false, the claim would be wrong rather than identical to its inputs. Therefore the paper does not exhibit significant circularity in its central derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or forces. Its free parameters are the continuous table entries used to define candidate AMCC and non-AMCC families. The axioms are standard results in the sheaf-theoretic contextuality program; the key unproved ingredient is the claimed CF=1 parameter range for Table II.

free parameters (2)
  • p1..p8 (Table II) = ranges [0,1/4]; claimed CF=1 for p_i=1/4 and others in [0,1/8]
    Continuous parameters defining the claimed infinite AMCC family; the CF=1 assertion depends on their values and is incorrect for all-interior choices.
  • p1,p2,p3 (Table III) = 0 ≤ p2 < 1/2, p2 < p1 < p2/2+1/4, 0 < p3 < min(...)
    Parameters of the non-AMCC strongly contextual family; bounds are asserted without proof.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Strong contextuality iff maximally contextual (CF=1)
    Used throughout to equate parity contradictions with CF=1; theorem from Abramsky et al. [37], not proved here.
  • standard math Contextual fraction computable by linear programming over the incidence matrix (Eq. 14)
    Foundation for all CF=1 numerical checks; simplex algorithm assumed.
  • domain assumption Possibilistic support collapse via Eq. (23) preserves strong contextuality and Boolean no-signaling (Appendix C)
    Used by the CSP construction to translate probability tables to SAT instances.
invented entities (1)
  • AMCC (absolutely maximally contextual correlations) no independent evidence
    purpose: New class of correlations claimed to be the correlation-space analogue of AME states
    Definition 8; existence supported by PR box and GHZ examples, but no empirical handle independent of the paper's own CF/marginal criteria.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analogs of absolutely maximally entangled states in nonlocal correlations via the sheaf-theoretic framework and its applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4VCIWP3S

@misc{pith2026260102009,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analogs of absolutely maximally entangled states in nonlocal correlations via the sheaf-theoretic framework and its applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4VCIWP3S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.02009}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

The foundational work by Bell led to an interest in understanding non-local correlations that arise from entangled states shared between distinct, spacelike-separated parties, which formed a foundation for the theory of quantum information processing. We investigate the question of maximal correlations analogous to the maximally entangled states defined in the entanglement theory of multipartite systems. In this work, we define the maximality of nonlocal correlation as being analogous to the absolutely maximally entangled state. To formalize this, we employ the sheaf-theoretic framework for contextuality, which generalizes non-locality. This provides a metric for correlations called contextual fraction (CF), which ranges from $0$ (non-contextual) to $1$ (maximally contextual). Using this, we have defined the absolutely maximal contextual correlations (AMCC), which are maximally contextual and have maximal marginals. The Popescu-Rohrlich (PR) box serves as the bipartite example, and we construct various extensions of such correlations in the tripartite case. An infinite family of various forms of AMCC is constructed using the parity check and the constraint satisfiability problem (CSP) construction. We also demonstrate the existence of maximally contextual correlations, which do not exhibit maximal marginals, and refer to them as non-AMCC. Furthermore, we showed that GHZ correlations in the $(n,2,2)$ setting give rise to AMCCs for the particular choice of measurement settings. The results are further applied to secret sharing and randomness extraction using AMCCs.

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

94 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Hence, all such models cor- respond to AMCCs

    This demonstrates that the eight-parameter empirical model shown in Table (II), with the parameter combina- tions described above, yields CF = 1 and the maximal marginals by construction. Hence, all such models cor- respond to AMCCs. We generalize these results in the next section using the Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) approach, employing Table (...

  2. [2]

    If such a global probability distribution exists, the model corresponds to a deterministic hidden-variable scenario

    The chain condition: if C, C ′ ∈ Mand C ⊆ C′, then C = C ′. For example, let us take the (2, 2, 2)-Bell scenario, as introduced earlier. We can write the measurement set: X = {X1, X′ 1, X2, X′ 2}, ( 5) the measurement cover: M = {{X1, X2}, {X1, X′ 2}, {X′ 1, X2}, {X′ 1, X′ 2}}, ( 6) and the outcome set O = {0, 1}. The joint outcome corresponding to each c...

  3. [3]

    Defining f = X1X2 ⊕ αX1 ⊕ βX2 ⊕ γ, the PR box can also be expressed as Pαβγ PR (x1x2 | X1X2) =1 2 δx1 0 δx2 f + δx1 1 δx2 f ⊕1 , ( 18) where δb a is the Kronecker delta. The bipartite marginals for the correlation are maximal marginals: P(x1 | X1) =1 2 δx1 0 + δx1 1 , P(x2 | X2) =1 2 δx2 0 + δx2 1 (19) Since the marginals corresponding to these PR box cor...

  4. [4]

    Thermodynam- ics and the measure of entanglement,

    Sandu Popescu and Daniel Rohrlich, “Thermodynam- ics and the measure of entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A 56, R3319–R3321 (1997)

    1997

  5. [5]

    ∨ (¬X1 ∧ ¬X′ 2), B3 = (X′ 1 ∧ X2) ∨ (¬X′ 1 ∧ ¬X2), B4 = (¬X′ 1 ∧ X′

  6. [6]

    (28) The first three formulas impose correlations ( x1 = x2, x1 = x′ 2, x′ 1 = x2), while the fourth imposes an anti-correlation ( x′ 1 ̸= x′ 2)

    ∨ (X′ 1 ∧ ¬X′ 2). (28) The first three formulas impose correlations ( x1 = x2, x1 = x′ 2, x′ 1 = x2), while the fourth imposes an anti-correlation ( x′ 1 ̸= x′ 2). This set of conditions is logically inconsistent: the first three together imply x′ 1 = x′ 2, which contradicts the fourth condition. Thus, no assignment in the set {(x1, x2, x′ 1, x′

  7. [7]

    Hence, the model is strongly contextual and has CF = 1

    | x1, x2, x′ 1, x′ 2 ∈ {0, 1}} simultaneously satisfies all four Boolean formu- las, implying Se = ∅. Hence, the model is strongly contextual and has CF = 1. We now introduce a new family of constructions that produce only AMCCs and are symmetric in structure. By symmetric, we mean that in each row of the probability table, exactly four entries are 0 and ...

  8. [8]

    This mapping is consistent since, for binary valuation, the modulo 2 operation and the logical OR operation are identical

    Here, the boolean formula corresponding to X1 + X2 = 0 (mod 2) is B1 = (X1 ∧ X2) ∨ (¬X1 ∧ ¬X2). This mapping is consistent since, for binary valuation, the modulo 2 operation and the logical OR operation are identical. Here, this parity equation is satisfiable only when both variables are the same. After mapping to the Boolean form, B1 is satisfiable when...

  9. [9]

    This corresponds to the parity assignment P1 = 0 and P2 = P3 = P4 = P5 = P6 = P7 = P8 = 1

    As an illustration, consider the model in Table (II) with parameter p1 = 0.25 and all others set to 0, which yields CF = 1. This corresponds to the parity assignment P1 = 0 and P2 = P3 = P4 = P5 = P6 = P7 = P8 = 1. The equations become: X1 + X2 + X3 = 0 (mod 2), X1 + X2 + X′ 3 = 1 (mod 2), X1 + X′ 2 + X3 = 1 (mod 2), X1 + X′ 2 + X′ 3 = 1 (mod 2), X′ 1 + X...

  10. [10]

    , B3 = (¬X1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ ¬X3) ∨ (¬X1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ X3) ∨ (X1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ X3) ∨ (X1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ ¬X3) , B4 = (¬X1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ ¬X′

  11. [11]

    , B5 = (¬X′ 1 ∧ ¬X2 ∧ ¬X3) ∨ (¬X′ 1 ∧ X2 ∧ X3) ∨ (X′ 1 ∧ ¬X2 ∧ X3) ∨ (X′ 1 ∧ X2 ∧ ¬X3) , B6 = (¬X′ 1 ∧ ¬X2 ∧ ¬X′

  12. [12]

    , B7 = (¬X′ 1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ ¬X3) ∨ (¬X′ 1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ X3) ∨ (X′ 1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ X3) ∨ (X′ 1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ ¬X3) , B8 = (¬X′ 1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ X′

  13. [14]

    ∨ (X′ 1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ ¬X′

  14. [15]

    Hence, the parity-check method provides a systematic and convenient way to generate AMCCs for (3, 2, 2) models

    , (37) This is the possibilistic collapse of a probability table whose nonzero entries are all 1/4, each correspond- ing to a Boolean statement bs appearing in the Boolean formula. Hence, the parity-check method provides a systematic and convenient way to generate AMCCs for (3, 2, 2) models. The models produced by this method have symmetric probability ta...

  15. [16]

    , B3 = (¬X1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ ¬X3) ∨ (¬X1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ X3) ∨ (¬X1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ ¬X3) ∨ (¬X1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ X3) , B4 = (¬X1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ ¬X′

  16. [17]

    , B5 = (¬X′ 1 ∧ ¬X2 ∧ ¬X3) ∨ (¬X′ 1 ∧ ¬X2 ∧ X3) ∨ (¬X′ 1 ∧ X2 ∧ ¬X3) ∨ (¬X′ 1 ∧ X2 ∧ X3) , B6 = (¬X′ 1 ∧ ¬X2 ∧ ¬X′

  17. [18]

    , B7 = (¬X′ 1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ ¬X3) ∨ (¬X′ 1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ X3) ∨ (X′ 1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ X3) ∨ (X′ 1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ ¬X3) , B8 = (¬X′ 1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ ¬X′

  18. [21]

    ∨ (¬X′ 1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ X′

  19. [22]

    For each Boolean formula, there are four remaining terms (local assignments) that can be added

    , (38) One could in principle start with any set of ad- missible Boolean formulas; we choose the set above for convenience. For each Boolean formula, there are four remaining terms (local assignments) that can be added. Considering all combinations of these extra terms would yield approximately 4.2 × 109 possibilities, which is still too large to handle e...

  20. [23]

    ∨ (¬X1 ∧ X2 ∧ X′ 3) ∨ (X1 ∧ ¬X2 ∧ ¬X′

  21. [24]

    ∨ (X1 ∧ X2 ∧ X′ 3), B3 = (¬X1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ ¬X3) ∨ (¬X1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ X3) ∨ (¬X1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ ¬X3) ∨ (¬X1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ X3) ∨ (X1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ ¬X3) ∨ (X1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ X3), B4 = (¬X1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ ¬X′

  22. [25]

    ∨ (X1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ ¬X′ 3), B5 = (¬X′ 1 ∧ ¬X2 ∧ ¬X3) ∨ (¬X′ 1 ∧ ¬X2 ∧ X3) ∨ (¬X′ 1 ∧ X2 ∧ ¬X3) ∨ (¬X′ 1 ∧ X2 ∧ X3) ∨ (X′ 1 ∧ ¬X2 ∧ ¬X3) ∨ (X′ 1 ∧ X2 ∧ X3), B6 = (¬X′ 1 ∧ ¬X2 ∧ ¬X′

  23. [26]

    ∨ (X′ 1 ∧ X2 ∧ ¬X′ 3), B7 = (¬X′ 1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ ¬X3) ∨ (¬X′ 1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ X3) ∨ (X′ 1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ X3) ∨ (X′ 1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ ¬X3), B8 = (¬X′ 1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ ¬X′

  24. [27]

    ∨ (¬X′ 1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ X′

  25. [28]

    ∨ (¬X′ 1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ ¬X′

  26. [29]

    ∨ (¬X′ 1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ X′ 3) ∨ (X′ 1 ∧ ¬X′ 2 ∧ ¬X′

  27. [30]

    secret” round or a “test

    ∨ (X′ 1 ∧ X′ 2 ∧ X′ 3), (39) This set of Boolean formulas corresponds to the col- lapse of the probabilistic table (III). This reduces the pa- rameters of the table (IV) to 3. 13 Con.& Sec. (0,0,0) (0,0,1) (0,1,0) (0,1,1) (1,0,0) (1,0,1) (1,1,0) (1,1,1) (0, 0, 0) 0 p1 p1 0 1/2 − p1 0 0 1/2 − p1 (0, 0, 1) p2 p1 − p2 p3 p1 − p3 1/2 − p1 0 0 1/2 − p1 (0, 1, ...

  28. [31]

    Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?” Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935)

    1935

  29. [32]

    On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox,

    John S Bell, “On the einstein podolsky rosen paradox,” Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  30. [33]

    proof, show examples of state-independent KS the- orem proofs. Fine’s theorem [ 34] is one of the pieces of evidence that leads us to the equivalence between the violation of the Bell inequality (CHSH) [ 35] and the impossibility of a global joint probability distribution. The KCBS inequality [ 36] provides one of the simplest state-dependent proofs for a...

  31. [34]

    Quantum en- tanglement,

    Ryszard Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki, Michał Horodecki, and Karol Horodecki, “Quantum en- tanglement,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865–942 (2009)

    2009

  32. [35]

    Conditions for a class of entanglement transformations,

    M. A. Nielsen, “Conditions for a class of entanglement transformations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 436–439 (1999)

    1999

  33. [36]

    Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways,

    W. D ¨ur, G. Vidal, and J. I. Cirac, “Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways,” Phys. Rev. A 62, 062314 (2000)

    2000

  34. [37]

    Four qubits can be entangled in nine different ways,

    Frank Verstraete, Jeroen Dehaene, Bart De Moor, and Henri Verschelde, “Four qubits can be entangled in nine different ways,” Physical Review A 65, 052112 (2002)

    2002

  35. [38]

    Local unitary equivalence of multipartite pure states,

    B Kraus, “Local unitary equivalence of multipartite pure states,” Physical review letters 104, 020504 (2010)

    2010

  36. [39]

    Maximally entangled set of multipartite quantum states,

    Julio I de Vicente, Cornelia Spee, and Barbara Kraus, “Maximally entangled set of multipartite quantum states,” Physical review letters 111, 110502 (2013)

    2013

  37. [40]

    Classification of multipartite entan- gled states by multidimensional determinants,

    Akimasa Miyake, “Classification of multipartite entan- gled states by multidimensional determinants,” Physical Review A 67, 012108 (2003)

    2003

  38. [41]

    Necessary and suf- ficient conditions for local manipulation of multipartite pure quantum states,

    Gilad Gour and Nolan R Wallach, “Necessary and suf- ficient conditions for local manipulation of multipartite pure quantum states,” New Journal of Physics 13, 073013 (2011)

    2011

  39. [42]

    Entangled pure state transformations via local operations assisted by finitely many rounds of classical communication,

    Cornelia Spee, Julio I de Vicente, David Sauerwein, and Barbara Kraus, “Entangled pure state transformations via local operations assisted by finitely many rounds of classical communication,” Physical Review Letters 118, 040503 (2017)

    2017

  40. [43]

    Identifying fam- ilies of multipartite states with non-trivial local entangle- ment transformations,

    Nicky Kai Hong Li, Cornelia Spee, Martin Hebenstreit, Julio I De Vicente, and Barbara Kraus, “Identifying fam- ilies of multipartite states with non-trivial local entangle- ment transformations,” Quantum 8, 1270 (2024)

    2024

  41. [44]

    Approximate and en- semble local entanglement transformations for multipar- tite states,

    David Gunn, Martin Hebenstreit, Cornelia Spee, Julio I de Vicente, and Barbara Kraus, “Approximate and en- semble local entanglement transformations for multipar- tite states,” Physical Review A 108, 052401 (2023)

    2023

  42. [45]

    Mea- sure of genuine multipartite entanglement with com- putable lower bounds,

    Zhi-Hao Ma, Zhi-Hua Chen, Jing-Ling Chen, Christoph Spengler, Andreas Gabriel, and Marcus Huber, “Mea- sure of genuine multipartite entanglement with com- putable lower bounds,” Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 83, 062325 (2011)

    2011

  43. [46]

    Triangle measure of tripartite entanglement,

    Songbo Xie and Joseph H Eberly, “Triangle measure of tripartite entanglement,” Physical Review Letters 127, 040403 (2021)

    2021

  44. [47]

    Random num- bers certified by bell’s theorem,

    S. Pironio, A. Ac ´ın, S. Massar, A. Boyer de la Giroday, D. N. Matsukevich, P . Maunz, S. Olmschenk, D. Hayes, L. Luo, T. A. Manning, and C. Monroe, “Random num- bers certified by bell’s theorem,” Nature 464, 1021–1024 (2010)

    2010

  45. [48]

    Device-independent secret sharing and a stronger form of bell nonlocality,

    MGM Moreno, Samura ´ı Brito, Ranieri V Nery, and Rafael Chaves, “Device-independent secret sharing and a stronger form of bell nonlocality,” Physical Review A 101, 052339 (2020)

    2020

  46. [49]

    Geometry of the quantum set on no- signaling faces,

    Ashutosh Rai, Cristhiano Duarte, Samura ´ı Brito, and Rafael Chaves, “Geometry of the quantum set on no- signaling faces,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 032106 (2019)

    2019

  47. [50]

    Quantum generalizations of bell’s inequality,

    Boris S Cirel’son, “Quantum generalizations of bell’s inequality,” Letters in Mathematical Physics 4, 93–100 (1980)

    1980

  48. [51]

    Quantum nonlo- cality as an axiom,

    Sandu Popescu and Daniel Rohrlich, “Quantum nonlo- cality as an axiom,” Foundations of Physics 24, 379–385 (1994)

    1994

  49. [52]

    Under- standing the interplay of entanglement and nonlocality: motivating and developing a new branch of entangle- ment theory,

    David Schmid, Thomas C Fraser, Ravi Kunjwal, Ana Be- len Sainz, Elie Wolfe, and Robert W Spekkens, “Under- standing the interplay of entanglement and nonlocality: motivating and developing a new branch of entangle- ment theory,” Quantum 7, 1194 (2023)

    2023

  50. [53]

    The type-independent resource theory of local opera- tions and shared randomness,

    David Schmid, Denis Rosset, and Francesco Buscemi, “The type-independent resource theory of local opera- tions and shared randomness,” Quantum 4, 262 (2020)

    2020

  51. [54]

    Type-independent characterization of spacelike sepa- rated resources,

    Denis Rosset, David Schmid, and Francesco Buscemi, “Type-independent characterization of spacelike sepa- rated resources,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 210402 (2020)

    2020

  52. [55]

    Operational framework for non- locality,

    Rodrigo Gallego, Lars Erik W ¨urflinger, Antonio Ac ´ın, and Miguel Navascu´es, “Operational framework for non- locality,” Physical review letters 109, 070401 (2012)

    2012

  53. [56]

    Op- erational characterization of multipartite nonlocal corre- lations,

    Sagnik Dutta, Amit Mukherjee, and Manik Banik, “Op- erational characterization of multipartite nonlocal corre- lations,” Phys. Rev. A 102, 052218 (2020)

    2020

  54. [57]

    The definition of multipartite nonlocal- ity,

    Jean-Daniel Bancal, Jonathan Barrett, Nicolas Gisin, and Stefano Pironio, “The definition of multipartite nonlocal- ity,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1112.2626 (2011)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  55. [58]

    Quantum nonlocality: Multicopy resource interconvert- ibility and their asymptotic inequivalence,

    Subhendu B Ghosh, Snehasish Roy Chowdhury, Gu- ruprasad Kar, Arup Roy, Tamal Guha, and Manik Banik, “Quantum nonlocality: Multicopy resource interconvert- ibility and their asymptotic inequivalence,” Physical Re- view Letters 132, 250205 (2024)

    2024

  56. [59]

    The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextual- ity,

    Samson Abramsky and Adam Brandenburger, “The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextual- ity,” New Journal of Physics 13, 113036 (2011)

    2011

  57. [60]

    The problem of hid- den variables in quantum mechanics,

    Simon Kochen and Ernst P Specker, “The problem of hid- den variables in quantum mechanics,” in Ernst Specker 18 Selecta (Springer, 2011) pp. 235–263

    2011

  58. [61]

    Simple unified form for the major no- hidden-variables theorems,

    N David Mermin, “Simple unified form for the major no- hidden-variables theorems,” Physical review letters 65, 3373 (1990)

    1990

  59. [62]

    Bell-kochen-specker theorem: A proof with 18 vectors,

    Ad ´an Cabello, Jos´eM Estebaranz, and Guillermo Garc ´ıa- Alcaine, “Bell-kochen-specker theorem: A proof with 18 vectors,” Physics Letters A 212, 183–187 (1996)

    1996

  60. [63]

    State-independent proof of kochen-specker theorem with 13 rays,

    Sixia Yu and Choo Hiap Oh, “State-independent proof of kochen-specker theorem with 13 rays,” Physical review letters 108, 030402 (2012)

    2012

  61. [64]

    Hidden variables, joint probability, and the bell inequalities,

    Arthur Fine, “Hidden variables, joint probability, and the bell inequalities,” Physical Review Letters 48, 291 (1982)

    1982

  62. [65]

    Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories,

    John F Clauser, Michael A Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard A Holt, “Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories,” Physical review letters 23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  63. [66]

    Simple test for hidden variables in spin-1 systems,

    Alexander A Klyachko, M Ali Can, Sinem Binicio ˘glu, and Alexander S Shumovsky, “Simple test for hidden variables in spin-1 systems,” Physical review letters 101, 020403 (2008)

    2008

  64. [67]

    Contextual fraction as a measure of contex- tuality,

    Samson Abramsky, Rui Soares Barbosa, and Shane Mansfield, “Contextual fraction as a measure of contex- tuality,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 050504 (2017)

    2017

  65. [68]

    Computational power of correlations,

    Janet Anders and Dan E. Browne, “Computational power of correlations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 050502 (2009)

    2009

  66. [69]

    Contextuality in measurement- based quantum computation,

    Robert Raussendorf, “Contextuality in measurement- based quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. A 88, 022322 (2013)

    2013

  67. [70]

    Topological proofs of contextuality in quantum mechanics,

    Cihan Okay, Sam Roberts, Stephen D. Bartlett, and Robert Raussendorf, “Topological proofs of contextuality in quantum mechanics,” ( 2017), arXiv:1701.01888 [quant- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [71]

    The cohomology of non-locality and contex- tuality,

    Samson Abramsky, Shane Mansfield, and Rui Soares Barbosa, “The cohomology of non-locality and contex- tuality,” Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science 95, 1–14 (2012)

    2012

  69. [72]

    Cohomological framework for contextual quantum computations,

    Robert Raussendorf, “Cohomological framework for contextual quantum computations,” ( 2019), arXiv:1602.04155 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  70. [73]

    Contextuality as a resource for measurement-based quantum computation beyond qubits,

    Markus Frembs, Sam Roberts, and Stephen D Bartlett, “Contextuality as a resource for measurement-based quantum computation beyond qubits,” New Journal of Physics 20, 103011 (2018)

    2018

  71. [74]

    A refined frauchiger– renner paradox based on strong contextuality,

    Laurens Walleghem, Rui Soares Barbosa, Matthew Pusey, and Stefan Weigert, “A refined frauchiger– renner paradox based on strong contextuality,” ( 2024), arXiv:2409.05491 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [75]

    Measurement-based quantum computation in fi- nite one-dimensional systems: string order implies com- putational power,

    Robert Raussendorf, Wang Yang, and Arnab Ad- hikary, “Measurement-based quantum computation in fi- nite one-dimensional systems: string order implies com- putational power,” Quantum 7, 1215 (2023)

    2023

  73. [76]

    Homotopical approach to quantum contextuality,

    Cihan Okay and Robert Raussendorf, “Homotopical approach to quantum contextuality,” Quantum 4, 217 (2020)

    2020

  74. [77]

    Proof of the peres conjecture for contextuality,

    Zhen-Peng Xu, Jing-Ling Chen, and Otfried G ¨uhne, “Proof of the peres conjecture for contextuality,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 230401 (2020)

    2020

  75. [78]

    State independent contextuality advances one-way communication,

    Debashis Saha, Paweł Horodecki, and Marcin Pawłowski, “State independent contextuality advances one-way communication,” New Journal of Physics 21, 093057 (2019)

    2019

  76. [79]

    Contextuality and bundle diagrams,

    Kerstin Beer and Tobias J. Osborne, “Contextuality and bundle diagrams,” Phys. Rev. A 98, 052124 (2018)

    2018

  77. [80]

    State- independent experimental test of quantum contextual- ity,

    G. Kirchmair, F. Z ¨ahringer, R. Gerritsma, M. Kleinmann, O. G ¨uhne, A. Cabello, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, “State- independent experimental test of quantum contextual- ity,” Nature 460, 494–497 (2009)

    2009

  78. [81]

    Experimental contextuality in classical light,

    Tao Li, Qiang Zeng, Xinbing Song, and Xiangdong Zhang, “Experimental contextuality in classical light,” Scientific Reports 7, 44467 (2017)

    2017

  79. [82]

    Scalable tests of quantum contextuality from stabilizer-testing nonlocal games,

    Wanbing Zhao, H. W. Shawn Liew, Wen Wei Ho, Chunx- iao Liu, and Vir B. Bulchandani, “Scalable tests of quantum contextuality from stabilizer-testing nonlocal games,” ( 2025), arXiv:2512.16654 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  80. [83]

    Many-body contextuality and self- testing quantum matter via nonlocal games,

    Oliver Hart, David T. Stephen, Evan Wickenden, and Rahul Nandkishore, “Many-body contextuality and self- testing quantum matter via nonlocal games,” ( 2025), arXiv:2512.16886 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.