Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Parallel repetition of expanded, and multiplayer, Quantum games: anchoring, optimal values, generalized error bounds, dependency-breaking as symmetry-breaking

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 The paper claims that the anchored optimal winning value of a multiplayer quantum game decays exponentially under parallel repetition, with the exponent governed by the anchoring probability, the player count, and the value gap below 1.

desk verdict The claimed exponential decay for multiplayer anchored parallel repetition is not proved: Theorem 4 assumes its own conclusion and the N-player transfer from [3] is missing. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.09380 v1 pith:XSHY6JAK submitted 2025-08-12 quant-ph cs.ITmath.ITmath.PR

Pete Rigas This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ITmath.ITmath.PR MSC 81P0281Q02
keywords parallelrepetitionanchoredgamesmultiplayerquantumoptimalvaluedependency-breakingerrorboundsexpandedrelativeentropy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the 'anchored' version of a multiplayer quantum game — one where each player's question is replaced by a dummy anchor question with some probability — has an optimal winning value that falls exponentially when the game is played $k$ times in parallel. If true, this is a hardness-amplification tool: a game that is merely slightly hard to win (value at most $1-\epsilon$) becomes exponentially hard to win on all $k$ copies at once, with bounds explicit enough to constrain player strategies. The engine of the proof is a family of 'dependency-breaking' variables that decorrelate the players' answers, together with three systems of expected values — normalization-factor bounds, positive-operator-valued measurement bounds, and relative-entropy bounds — computed to leading order and chained into the exponential. The result extends the known two-player anchoring theory to $N$ players, at the price of exponents that grow with $N$, and the same framework is applied to expanded games.

What carries the argument

The carrying device is the anchoring transformation, which replaces a player's question with a dummy symbol $\perp$ with probability governed by $\alpha$, forcing winning strategies to be stable under question substitution. Around it the paper organizes dependency-breaking variables — position-indexed sampling devices that decorrelate the players' answers, formalized through 'usefulness' and 'sampleability' conditions — and reads their action as symmetry-breaking of the entangled strategy state. The quantitative load is carried by three expectation systems: unitary-and-normalization expectations (Theorem 1), positive-operator-valued measurement expectations built from conjugated tensor obser

What would settle it

Compute the $N=3$ analogue of Lemma 4.6 on a small three-player XOR-type game: average the total-variation distance between the conditional and unconditional sampling distributions of the dependency-breaking variables and test whether the leading order is $\delta^{N/300}=\delta^{1/100}$ or the two-player $\delta^{1/16}$. If the exponent stays $1/16$, the transferred lemma is false and the $\alpha^{20N+1}\epsilon^{6N}$ exponent of Theorem 4 does not follow. The check is finite — alphabets of two to four questions per player suffice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 4: for a multiplayer $\alpha$-anchored game $G$ with value at most $1-\epsilon$, the $k$-fold parallel repetition satisfies $\omega_{\mathrm{Multiplayer}}((G^\perp)^{\otimes k}) \le (10/\epsilon_M)\exp(-c_M\alpha_M^{20N+1}\epsilon_M^{6N}k/s_M)$, with $s_M$ the log of the alphabet-size product and $c_M < 1/(N^{2N}\log e)$. Theorems 1–3 bound the three systems of expected values — normalized dependency-breaking states, positive-operator-valued measurements, and squared $\ell^1$ distances — by powers of $\delta^{N/300}/\alpha^{N+1}$ (up to $\alpha^{-4}$ corrections). Chained to two-player anchoring lemmas that are asserted to transfer to $N$ players under $\delta\ma

Load-bearing premise

The bound collapses unless the two-player anchoring lemmas — Lemma 4.6, Propositions 5.1 and 6.5, and Theorem 6.1 of reference [3] — genuinely carry over to $N$ players with $\delta$ replaced by $\delta^{N/300}$ and $\alpha$ by $\alpha^{N+1}$; the paper asserts this transfer by 'directly apply[ing]' the two-player arguments rather than reproving them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sharp hardness amplification: a multiplayer game with value at most $1-\epsilon$ becomes exponentially hard to win on all $k$ simultaneous copies, with probability $\le (10/\epsilon)\,e^{-ck}$ — the standard ingredient for turning weak inapproximability into strong inapproximability in multi-prover settings.
  • Player count bites: because the exponent contains $\alpha^{20N+1}\epsilon^{6N}$, the guaranteed decay weakens as $N$ grows; the theorem makes precise how many repetitions are needed to compensate for extra players.
  • Quantitative anchoring thresholds: the expectation bounds yield explicit guides (multiplayer analogs of constants such as $\xi^2\epsilon^4/14440000$) for choosing the anchoring probability $\alpha$ to reach a target decay.
  • Expanded-game error bounds: the known exponential decay for expanded games enters the Frobenius-norm inequalities for parallel-repeated tensor observables, so the established decay rate constrains which approximately optimal strategies can survive repetition.
  • The prefactor $10/\epsilon$ with $\epsilon$ the value gap shows the bound degrades gracefully as the base game approaches value 1, tying repetition decay to how far the original game is from trivial.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The transfer step is the part of the argument a reader would want to see re-derived; a self-contained $N$-player proof of Lemma 4.6, even just for $N=3$, would convert the asserted $\alpha^{N+1}$, $\delta^{N/300}$ scalings into a verified theorem.
  • If the $\alpha^{20N+1}$ dependence is tight, multiplayer hardness amplification needs either many repetitions or a large anchoring probability as $N$ grows; this concrete quantitative prediction could be probed numerically for $N=3,4$.
  • The ratio $|\Omega_{\mathrm{Multiplayer}}|/|\Omega|$ that the paper introduces behaves like a correlation-length ratio, suggesting a phase-transition picture of anchoring — below a critical $\alpha$ the exponential regime would fail; this is the author's dependency-breaking-as-symmetry-breaking intuition made quantitative and testable.
  • Theorem 2's positive-operator-valued measurement correspondence gives explicit measurement operators for the conditional answer distributions; a natural next step is to convert these operators into explicit player strategies and check whether the Theorem 4 bound is approachable, i.e., whether the exponential is tight.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims to prove exponential decay under parallel repetition for the anchored optimal value of multiplayer quantum games (Theorem 4, Section 1.7.1): omega_Multiplayer((G^perp)^{otimes k}) <= (10/eps_M) exp(- c_M alpha_M^{20N+1} eps_M^{6N} k / s_M). The argument is organized around three auxiliary bounds (Theorems 1--3) on systems of expectation values involving dependency-breaking variables, POVMs, and Pinsker-type inequalities, and around a set of Frobenius-norm error bounds for expanded and multiplayer XOR/FFL games. The technical core of Theorem 4, however, is not proved in the manuscript: it is imported from the two-player anchoring framework of Bavarian--Vidick--Yuen (refs. [2,3,4]) with the replacements delta -> delta_M^{N/300} and alpha -> alpha^{N+1}, and the proofs consist largely of 'directly apply the argument' statements.

Significance. If the main theorem were established, it would be a substantial contribution: exponential decay for anchored parallel repetition of multiplayer nonlocal games would generalize the two-player results of Bavarian--Vidick--Yuen and would have implications for hardness amplification and communication complexity. The paper also usefully collects several explicit systems of expectation values and normalization factors (Gamma_i, fE^{Gamma_i}, POVM_E, PI) that could serve as a starting point for a rigorous multiplayer anchoring proof. However, the manuscript as written does not provide a proof of the N-player transfer: the central lemmas are cited, not derived, and one of the key statements is explicitly conditional on the very bound being proved. The paper contains no machine-checked proofs or reproducible code, and several of the cited foundational results are the author's own submitted manuscripts. The claimed exponential decay is therefore not established by this paper.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.9, 'Proof of Lemma 4' and the two Propositions] The proof of Theorem 4 is delegated to 'Proposition 6.5' and 'Theorem 6.1' from [3] with the replacements delta -> delta_M^{N/300} and alpha -> alpha^{N+1}. No derivation of the N-player version is supplied: the first Proposition says 'Directly apply the argument provided in Proposition of [2]', and the second Proposition jumps from a display for delta_M to 'which implies that the multiplayer winning probability equals ...' without a proof. This transfer is load-bearing: all of the estimates in Theorems 1--3 depend on the same N-player scaling, and without it the exponential bound in Theorem 4 does not follow.
  2. [Section 1.5.3, 'Sharpening the up to constants upper bound'] The claimed bound is stated as: omega_Multiplayer((G^perp)^{otimes n}) <= (10/eps_M) exp(- c_M alpha^{20N+1} eps^{6N} n / s_M) 'under the assumption that omega_Multiplayer((G^perp)^{otimes n}) is asymptotically bounded by' exactly that exponential expression. This is circular: the target of Theorem 4 is assumed rather than derived at the point where it is introduced, and Section 2.9 does not subsequently remove the assumption.
  3. [Section 2.5, Proposition (three-player POVM bound) vs. Section 2.1, Lemma 4.6] The three-player POVM expectation is claimed to be O(delta^{2/150} / alpha^4), while the imported 'Lemma 4.6, [3]' with N=3 gives sqrt(delta^{3/300})/alpha^4 = delta^{1/200}/alpha^4, and Theorem 2 states sqrt(delta^{N/300})/alpha^{N+5}, i.e. for N=3, delta^{1/200}/alpha^8. These three expressions have different powers of delta and alpha for the same quantity. The text does not reconcile them, so the formal system of bounds is internally inconsistent; the claimed O(delta^{N/300}/alpha^{N+5}) in Theorem 2 cannot be read as a consequence of the displayed computations.
  4. [Section 2.9, second Proposition] The derivation of the key parameter delta_M is not justified. The chain 'delta_M <= ... <= 40 N c_M log(e) alpha^{20N+1} eps^{6N}' is asserted after a series of algebraic inequalities, and the final line 'P(N players win) = 1 - eps/2 - beta' delta^{N/300}/alpha^{N+1}' is stated without a proof. This step is precisely what converts the auxiliary bounds into the exponential decay, so the gap is central.
  5. [Section 1.5.3, Claim 2 and surrounding citations] Claim 2 states that marginal distributions over questions equal a measure mu and its proof cites 'Claim 4.2 from []' with a blank reference. Similar blank or malformed citations appear elsewhere (e.g. 'Proposition of [2]' in Section 2.9). A central result cannot rest on an unidentifiable citation; this is another indication that the N-player anchoring lemmas are being assumed rather than proved.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are frequent typographical errors and inconsistent notation: 'muat' for 'must', 'thue' for 'the', variable names such as 'ϵMultiplater', 'Pinkser' for 'Pinsker', and 'Fucsh' for 'Fuchs'. These should be corrected.
  2. [Section 1.5.3] The list of probabilistic facts contains several inequalities with undefined symbols (e.g. alpha in 'each occurrence of alpha ... = P_{Q_i}(q1,q2) = alpha P_{Q_i}(q1)') and with sets of questions that are not formally defined. This makes it difficult to verify even the elementary bounds.
  3. [Section 2.5, final display] The notation for normalized states alternates between |^Psi> and |ePsi> without a systematic definition, and the long chain of inequalities contains missing norm signs and mismatched indices. The reader cannot check the claimed O(delta^{2/150}/alpha^4) bound without substantial reconstruction.
  4. [Figure 2 and Section 1.5.3] The Camassa-Holm quantum circuit and the references to the author's other papers ([50]--[53], several 'submitted') are not connected to the main theorem. They should either be integrated or removed.
  5. [Appendix] The appendix proves Frobenius-norm error bounds for expanded games, but these are not used in the proof of Theorem 4. The paper would be clearer if the appendix results were explicitly linked to the anchoring argument or deferred to a separate paper.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Theorem 4's exponential decay is assumed verbatim in the 'sharpened bound' step; the N-player transfer from [3] is asserted, not derived.

  1. self definitional [Section 1.5.3, bullet 'Sharpening the up to constants upper bound with an appropriate prefactor']
    "One has that, ωMultiplayer((G⊥)^{⊗n}) ≤ 10/ϵMultiplayer exp(− cMultiplayer α^{20N+1}_{Multiplayer} ϵ^{6N}_{Multiplayer} n / sMultiplayer), under the assumption that, ωMultiplayer((G⊥)^{⊗n}) ≾ exp(− cMultiplayer α^{20N+1}_{Multiplayer} ϵ^{6N}_{Multiplayer} n / sMultiplayer)."

    This is precisely the bound of Theorem 4, prefactor included, stated as holding only under the assumption of the same exponential decay with the same exponent. The claimed result is therefore an input to its own derivation. Neither the preceding bullets nor the later proof supply an independent derivation of that ≾ bound; Section 2.9 imports two-player lemmas from [3] and asserts the N-player transfer. Thus the central claim reduces, by the paper's own words, to its conclusion.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.9, Proposition (computation of the power of decay in the exponential upper bound, Theorem 6.1, [3])]
    "With the choice of parameters provided in the previous result above, ϵMultiplayer ≥ (δMultiplayer/cMultiplayer · 1/(40N) · 1/log(e) · 1/α^{20N+1}_{Multiplayer})^{1/(6N)}, hence implying the desired exponential rate of decay for parallel repetition of the anchored multiplayer optimal value."

    The parameter ε_M is chosen by inverting α^{20N+1} ε^{6N} = δ/(40N c log e), so the exponent appearing in Theorem 4 is manufactured by the parameter definition. The accompanying computation derives δ_M ≤ 40N c log(e) α^{20N+1} ε^{6N} and then asserts ω = 1 − ε/2 − β′ δ^{N/300}/α^{N+1}; the 'desired exponential rate' is not obtained from the multiplayer game value but is the same expression inserted by the parameter choice and imported from the two-player Theorem 6.1 of [3] without an N-player proof.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section 1.5.3, Claim 2]
    "Proof of Claim 2 . Directly apply the argument from Claim 4.2 from [], from which we conclude the argument."

    Missing-support flag rather than a circular step: the equality of marginal question distributions is load-bearing for the anchoring argument, but it is referred to a blank citation. The same pattern recurs throughout the N-player transfer (Lemma 4.6, Proposition 5.1, Proposition 6.5, Theorem 6.1 of [3] are each justified by 'directly apply the arguments'), so the central bound has no self-contained derivation and the omitted proof is not supplied.

full rationale

The paper's advertised main result, Theorem 4, is not derived from independent inputs. The clearest circular step is in Section 1.5.3: the sharpened exponential bound is stated 'under the assumption that' the same asymptotic exponential bound holds. That is the theorem's conclusion used as its hypothesis. The later proof in Section 2.9 does not repair this: it invokes Proposition 6.5 and Theorem 6.1 from [3] and claims the two-player anchoring arguments carry over to N players with δ replaced by δ^{N/300} and α by α^{N+1}, but no N-player derivation is given. The transfer is asserted by phrases like 'directly apply the argument' and one proof cites a blank reference ('Claim 4.2 from []'). This is a gap and an omitted proof, not itself a circularity, but it makes the central derivation depend entirely on an unverified substitution. The parameter choice in Section 2.9 further fits ε_M so that the exponent α^{20N+1} ε^{6N} appears, and then the desired decay is declared. Because the central claim reduces to its own assumption and to an unproved citation transfer, the circularity score is high. External prior work [3] is legitimate support in general, but here it is not machine-checked, not reproduced, and the specific N-player generalization is not established; the author's own self-citations [50,52] are not the load-bearing part of this circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central argument leans on the anchored-parallel-repetition framework of [2,3,4], the alpha-anchored question distribution, and a set of dependency-breaking variables whose sampling properties are assumed rather than derived. Most N-player claims are not proved in the text, only imported from prior two-player lemmas.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (anchoring probability) = 0 < alpha <= 1, with alpha = 2 eta
    Defines the alpha-anchored question distribution P_M|D; all bounds scale as alpha^{-(N+1)}. It is a game-design parameter, not fitted to data.
  • eta = alpha / 2
    Appears in P_M|D(q_perp) = (alpha - eta)/(1 - eta) and determines the anchored distribution together with alpha.
  • epsilon_Multiplayer = strictly positive, sufficiently small
    Winning probability slack in Theorem 4; appears in the prefactor 10/epsilon and in the exponent epsilon^{6N}.
  • xi (one-sided anchoring probability) = in (0,1)
    Appears in the two-player bounds imported from [30] and is carried into the claimed multiplayer generalization.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The random variables Q1,...,QN are independent conditionally on dependency-breaking variables D and M.
    Claim 1 states this factorization directly; it is required for product strategies and for the conditional probability chain, but it is not derived from a specific game model.
  • domain assumption Usefulness and sampleability hold: there exist states and measurements such that measurements on dependency-breaking states reproduce the conditional winning probabilities, and unitaries connect anchored and unanchored states.
    Introduced in Section 1.2 and used in Lemmas 1 through 3; imported from [2,3,4] without proof in the multiplayer setting.
  • ad hoc to paper The two-player anchoring lemmas of [3], specifically Lemma 4.6, Proposition 5.1, Proposition 6.5, and Theorem 6.1, transfer to N players with delta replaced by delta_M^{N/300} and alpha by alpha^{N+1}.
    Theorems 1 through 4 are proved by 'directly applying' these prior results; the N-player transfer is the load-bearing generalization and is not carried out in the text.
  • domain assumption Anchored conditional probabilities remain close under sequential replacement of each player's response by the anchor symbol perp.
    The chain of approximate equalities in Section 1.2 for P(Omega_Multiplayer | X1...XN, WC) is asserted as the basis for the calculations; no proof is given for N > 2.
  • standard math Standard quantum information tools: Uhlmann's theorem, Fuchs-van de Graaf inequalities, and a Pinsker-type inequality for states.
    Used in the corollaries and in Theorem 3; these are standard tools, though the paper's displayed Pinsker inequality is missing the square on the l1 norm.
invented entities (3)
  • Multiplayer dependency-breaking variables Omega_Multiplayer
    purpose: Justify the approximation of conditional probabilities when responses are replaced by anchored values.
    The set and its sampling probabilities are introduced in Section 1.2; no falsifiable handle is given, and the chain of approximate equalities is assumed.
  • Dependency-breaking unitaries U_{j,r-i}
    purpose: Relate anchored and unanchored dependency-breaking states in the expectation bounds of Lemma 1.
    Existence is postulated for every r-i and q1...qN; it is asserted through the usefulness and sampleability conditions, not demonstrated.
  • Normalization factors Gamma_i
    purpose: Quantify the effect of anchoring the first i answers; they appear in Theorem 1's upper bound.
    Defined in Section 1.5.3 as ratios of norms of dependency-breaking states; a bookkeeping device with no external handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Parallel repetition of expanded, and multiplayer, Quantum games: anchoring, optimal values, generalized error bounds, dependency-breaking as symmetry-breaking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XSHY6JAK

@misc{pith2026250809380,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Parallel repetition of expanded, and multiplayer, Quantum games: anchoring, optimal values, generalized error bounds, dependency-breaking as symmetry-breaking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XSHY6JAK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.09380}
}
abstract

We demonstrate that parallel repetition of the multiplayer anchored optimal value, $\omega \big( G_{\bot} \big)^{\otimes n}$, decays exponentially. Central to our approach are several probabilistic computations, pertaining to: (1) the computation of expected values for quantifying how the winning probability of the game is likely to change under the anchoring transformation; (2) the computation of positive operator valued measurements, which can be placed into direct correspondence with several probabilistically defined quantities; (3) the computation of Relative, and Relative-min entropies; (4) and lastly, the computation of generalized error bounds, which have previously been analyzed by the author in several multiplayer game-theoretic settings (arXiv: 2505.06322, and arXiv: 2507.03035). This work builds upon observations originally provided by Bavarian, Vidick, and Yuen (arXiv: 1509.07466).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Probability distributions over CSS codes: two-universality, QKD hashing, collision bounds, security

    quant-ph 2025-10 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A two-universal QKD hashing protocol is claimed to be 2^{−k/2 + n h_2(r/n) + 35/4 + log_2√C}-secure for an unspecified constant C — a strictly weaker bound than Ostrev's 2^{−k/2 + n h(r/n) + 5/2}, obtained by adapting...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [3]

    We conclude the subsection by providing an analog of the following approximality result of the bias under parallel repetition

    ∧ · · · ∧B(2) σ(i′···′ 1 ,i′···′ 2 ) × |ψ′⟩ ∧ · · · ∧ |ψ′⟩ , are strictly upper bounded by, X 1≤j≤2 I ∧···∧ j < 40 q 2ϵ∧···∧ Expanded. We conclude the subsection by providing an analog of the following approximality result of the bias under parallel repetition. Lemma 8 (ϵ-approximality of the bias of 3-XOR, N-XOR, and strong parallel rep- etitions of XOR ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    ∧ · · · ∧B(2) σ(i′···′ 1 ,i′···′ 2 ) O I × |ψ′⟩ ∧ · · · ∧ |ψ′⟩ 82 − I O 1√#σ X Permutations σ B(2) σ(i1,i2) ∧ B(2) σ(i′ 1,i′

    work page

  3. [1]

    Quantum one way vs

    Amr, A., Villanueva, I. Quantum one way vs. classical two way communication in XOR games. Quantum Information Processing 20, 79 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Parallel repetition of Multi-party and Quantum Games via Anchoring and Fortification

    Bavarian, M. Parallel repetition of Multi-party and Quantum Games via Anchoring and Fortification. PhD Thesis, Massachussetts Institute of Technology (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Anchored Parallel Repeti- tion for Nonlocal Games

    Bavarian, M., Vidick, T., Yuen, H. Anchored Parallel Repeti- tion for Nonlocal Games. SIAM Journal on Computing 51:2 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1137/21M1405927

    doi:10.1137/21m1405927 2022

  6. [6]

    Hardness amplification for entangled games via anchoring

    Bavarian, M., Vidick, T., Yuen, H. Hardness amplification for entangled games via anchoring. STOC 2017: Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , 303-316. https://doi.org/10.1145/3055399.3055433

    arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Buhrman, H., Toner, B

    Briet, J. Buhrman, H., Toner, B. A generalized Grothendieck inequality and entanglement in XOR games. Comm. Math. Phys. 305: 827-843 (2011). https : //doi.org/10.1007/s00220 − 011 − 1280 − 3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00220 2011

  8. [8]

    On the power of non-local boxes

    Broadbent, A., Methot, A.A. On the power of non-local boxes. Theoretical Computer Science 358: 3-14 (2006). https : //doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2005.08.035

    doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2005.08.035 2006

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum Pseudo-Telepathy

    Brassard, G., Broadbent, A., Tapp, A. Quantum Pseudo-Telepathy. Found. Phys. 35: 1877-1907 (2005). https : //philpapers.org/rec/BRAQP

    1907

  2. [10]

    and Coyle, B

    Benedetti, M. and Coyle, B. and Fiorentini, M. and Lubasch, M. and Rosenkranz, M. Variational Inference with a Quantum Computer. Phys Rev Applied 16: 044057 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied .16.044057

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    and Kliesch, M

    Bittel, L. and Kliesch, M. Training Variational Quantum Algo- rithms is NP-Hard. Physical Review Letters 127: 120502 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.120502

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    and Faleiro, R

    Catani, L. and Faleiro, R. and Emeriau,P.E. and Mansfield,S. and Pappa, A. Connecting XOR and XOR* games. Phys. Rev. A. 109: 012427 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.012427

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    and Vives, M

    Chen, H. and Vives, M. and Metcalf, M. Parametric amplification of an optomechanical quantum interconnect. Physical Review Research 4: 043119 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.043119

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    and Duan, L

    Cong, I. and Duan, L. Quantum discriminant analysis for dimensional- ity reduction and classification. New Journal of Physics 18: 073011 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/18/7/073011. 124

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    Consequences and Limits of Nonlocal Strategies

    Cleve, R., Hoyer, P., Toner, B., Watrous, J. Consequences and Limits of Nonlocal Strategies. 19th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity Proceedings : 236-249 (2004). https : //doi.org/10.1109/CCC.2004.1313847

    2004 arXiv

  8. [16]

    ”Approximation Algorithms for Noncom- mutative CSPs,” 2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 920-929 (2024)

    Culf, E., Mousavi, H., and Spirig, T. ”Approximation Algorithms for Noncom- mutative CSPs,” 2024 IEEE 65th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 920-929 (2024). https : //doi.org /10.1109/FOCS61266.2024.00061

    2024

  9. [17]

    A Computational Tsireslson’s Theorem for the Value of Compiled XOR games

    Cui, D., Malavolta, G., Mehta, A., Natarajan, A., Paddock, C., Schmidt, S., Wal- ter, M., Zhang, T. A Computational Tsireslson’s Theorem for the Value of Compiled XOR games. arXiv: 2402.17301 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Multiplayer Parallel Repetition for Expanding Games

    Dinur, I., Harsha, P., Venkat, R., Yuen, H. Multiplayer Parallel Repetition for Expanding Games. 8th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Confer- ence (ITCS 2017). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 67, pp. 37:1-37:16, Schloss Dagstuhl – L...

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    The Quantum Moment Problem and Bounds on Entangled Multi-Prover Games

    Doherty, A.C., Liang, Y.C., Toner, B., Wehner, S. The Quantum Moment Problem and Bounds on Entangled Multi-Prover Games. 23rd Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity 8: 1093-0159/08 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Experimental Quantum Advan- tage in the Odd-Cycle Game

    Drmota, P., Main, D., Ainley, E.M., Agrawal, A., Araneda, G., Nadlinger, Srinivas, R., Cabello, A., et al. Experimental Quantum Advan- tage in the Odd-Cycle Game. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134: 070201 (2025). https : //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.070201

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    and Koh, D

    Ewe, W-B. and Koh, D. E. and Goh, S. T. and Chu, H-S and Png, C. E. Variational Quantum-Based Simulation of Waveguide Modes. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 70 (5): 2517-2525 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/TMTT.2022.3151510

    2022

  14. [22]

    and Mansfield, S

    Pierre-Emmanuel Emeriau, P-E., Howard, M. and Mansfield, S. Quan- tum Advantage in Information Retrieval. PRX Quantum 3, 020307 (2022). https : //doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.020307

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Quantum strategies for simple 2-player XOR games

    Faleiro, R. Quantum strategies for simple 2-player XOR games. Quantum Inf Process 19, 229 (2020). doi : 10 .1007/s11128 − 020 − 02717 − 2

    2020

  16. [24]

    and Ikbal, S

    Garg, D. and Ikbal, S. and Srivastava, S.K. and Vishwakarma, H. and Karanam, H. and Subramaniam, L.V. Quantum Embedding of Knowledge for Reasoning. Advance in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (2019). https : //papers.nips.cc/paperf iles/paper/2019/hash/cb12d7f933e7d102...

    2019

  17. [25]

    and Tufarelli, T

    Genoni, M.G. and Tufarelli, T. Non-orthogonal bases for quantum metrol- ogy. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 52: 43 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ab3fe0

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    and Candia, B

    Gidi, J.A. and Candia, B. and Munoz-Moller, A.D. and Rojas, A. and Pereira, L. and Munoz, M. and Zambrano, L. and Delgado, A. Stochastic opti- mization algorithms for quantum applications. Phys.Rev.A 108: 032409 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.108.032409

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    and Daley, A.J

    Givi, P. and Daley, A.J. and Mavriplis, D. and Malik, M. Quantum Speedup for Aeroscience and Engineering. AIAA 58:8 (2020). https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20200003505/downloads/20200003505.pdf

    2020

  20. [28]

    Helton, J.W., Mousavi, H., Nezhadi, S.S. et al. Synchronous Values of Games.Ann. Henri Poincar´ e25, 4357–4397 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00023-024-01426-1

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    and Nayak, A

    Hadiashar, S.B. and Nayak, A. and Sinha, P. Optimal lower bounds for Quantum Learning via Information Theory. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 70(3): 1876–1896 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/ TIT.2023.3324527

    2024

  22. [30]

    and Kim, L

    Hur, T. and Kim, L. and Park, D.K. Quantum convolutional neural net- work for classical data classification. Quantum Machine Intelligence 4: 3 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42484-021-00061-x

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    and Coble, N.J

    Holmes, Z. and Coble, N.J. and Sornborger, A.T. and Subasi, Y. On nonlin- ear transformations in quantum computation. Phys. Rev. Research 5: 013105 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.013105

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    A Direct Product Theorem for One-Way Quantum Commu- nication

    Jain, R., Kundu, S. A Direct Product Theorem for One-Way Quantum Commu- nication. 36 th Computational Complexity Conference (CCC 2021) 27, 1-28 (2021). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2008.08963

    2021 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    and Wang, Y

    Jing, H. and Wang, Y. and Li, Y. Data-Driven Quantum Approximate Opti- mization Algorithm for Cyber-Physical Power Systems. arXiv : 2204.00738 (2022). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.00738

    2022 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    On the power of quantum entanglement in multipartite quantum XOR games

    Junge, M., Palazuelos, C. On the power of quantum entanglement in multipartite quantum XOR games. Journal of the London Mathematical Society 110(5) (2024)

    2024

  27. [36]

    A quantum computing primer for operator the- orists

    Kribs, D.W. A quantum computing primer for operator the- orists. Linear Algebra and its Applications 400: 147-167 (2005). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.math/0404553. 126

    2005 doi arXiv

  28. [37]

    Li, R. Y. and Di Felice, R. and Rohs, R. and Lidar, D.A. Quantum annealing versus classical machine learning applied to a simplied computational biology problem. NPJ Quantum Information 4: 14 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-018-0060-8

    2008 doi

  29. [38]

    and Yeganeh, H.D

    Mahdian, M. and Yeganeh, H.D. Toward a quantum computing algorithm to quantify classical and quantum correlation of system states. Quantum Information Processing 20: 393 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11128-021-03331-6

    2021

  30. [39]

    and Flick, J

    Maldonado, T.J. and Flick, J. and Krastanov, S. and Galda, A. Error rate reduc- tion of single-qubit gates via noise-aware decomposition into native gates. Scientific Reports 12: 6379 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038 /s41598-022-10339-0

    2022

  31. [40]

    and Stella, M

    Manby, F.R. and Stella, M. and Goodpaster, J.D. and Miller, T.F. A Simple, Exact Density-Functional-Theory Embedding Scheme. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 8 (8): 2564-2568 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1021/ct300544e

    2012 doi

  32. [41]

    Security proof for parallel DIQKD

    Marwah, A., Dupuis, F. Security proof for parallel DIQKD. arXiv: 2507.03991 (2025). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.03991

    2025 doi arXiv

  33. [42]

    and Sahin, E

    Mensa, S. and Sahin, E. and Tacchino, F. and Barkoutsos, P.K. and Tavernelli, I. Quantum Machine Learning Framework for Virtual Screening in Drug Discovery: a Prospective Quantum Advantage. Mach. Learn.: Sci. Technol. 4: 015023 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1088/2632-2153/acb900

    2023 doi

  34. [43]

    and Govono, M

    Nan Sheng, H.M. and Govono, M. and Galli, G. Quantum Embedding Theory for Strongly-Correlated States in Materials. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 17 (4): 2116-2125 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc. 0c01258

    2021 doi

  35. [44]

    The structure of nearly-optimal quantum strategies for the CHSH(n) XOR games

    Ostrev, D. The structure of nearly-optimal quantum strategies for the CHSH(n) XOR games. Quantum Information and Computation 16 (13-14): 1191-1211 (2016). https://doi.org/10.26421/QIC16.13-14-6

    2016 doi

  36. [45]

    Composable, Unconditionally Secure Message Authentication without any Secret Key

    Ostrev, D. Composable, Unconditionally Secure Message Authentication without any Secret Key. IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory 10: 1109, 622-626 (2019).https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIT.2019.8849510”

    2019

  37. [46]

    and Elfving, V.E

    Paine, A.E. and Elfving, V.E. and Kyriienko, O. Quantum Kernel Meth- ods for Solving Differential Equations. Physical Review A 107: 032428 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.032428

    2023 doi

  38. [47]

    Quantum Computing and Simulations 127 for Energy Applications: Review and Perspective

    Paudel, H.P., Syamlal, M., Crawford, S.E., Lee, Y-L, Shugayev, R.A., Lu, P., Ohodnicki, P.R., Mollot, D., Duan, Y. Quantum Computing and Simulations 127 for Energy Applications: Review and Perspective. ACS Eng. Au : 3 151-196 (2022). https : //doi.org/10.1021/acsengineeringau.1c00033

    2022 doi

  39. [48]

    Quantum process in probability representation of quantum mechanics

    Przhiyalkovskiy, Y.V. Quantum process in probability representation of quantum mechanics. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 55: 085301 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ac4b15

    2022 doi

  40. [49]

    Statistical physics of human cooperation

    Perc, M. Statistical physics of human cooperation. Physics Reports 687: 1-51 (2017). https : //papers.ssrn .com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstractid = 2972841

    2017

  41. [50]

    and Vidick, T

    Oded, R. and Vidick, T. 2015. Quantum XOR Games. ACM Transactions on Computation Theory ]7(4): Art. No. 15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2799560

    2015 doi

  42. [51]

    Generalized XOR games with d outcomes and the task of nonlocal computation.Phys

    Ravishankar Ramanathan, R., Augusiak, R., and Murta, G. Generalized XOR games with d outcomes and the task of nonlocal computation.Phys. Rev. A 93, 022333 (2016). https : //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA .93.022333

    2016 doi

  43. [52]

    Optimal, and approximately optimal, quantum strategies for XOR∗ and FFL games

    Rigas, P. Optimal, and approximately optimal, quantum strategies for XOR∗ and FFL games. arXiv: 2311.12887 (2023), submitted

    2023 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Rigas, P. Variational quantum algorithm for measurement extraction from the Navier-Stokes, Einstein, Maxwell, B-type, Lin-Tsien, Camassa-Holm, DSW, H-S, KdV-B, non-homogeneous KdV, generalized KdV, KdV, translational KdV, sKdV, B-L and Airy equations, shortened version includi...

  45. [54]

    Quantum error bounds, optimality, and duality gaps for multiplayer XOR, XOR*, compiled XOR, XOR*, and strong parallel repetition of XOR, XOR*, and FFL games

    Rigas, P. Quantum error bounds, optimality, and duality gaps for multiplayer XOR, XOR*, compiled XOR, XOR*, and strong parallel repetition of XOR, XOR*, and FFL games. Submitted (2025)

    2025

  46. [55]

    Error correction, authentication, and false acceptance, probabilities for communication over noisy quantum channels: converse upper bounds on the bit transmission rate

    Rigas, P. Error correction, authentication, and false acceptance, probabilities for communication over noisy quantum channels: converse upper bounds on the bit transmission rate. arXiv: arXiv:2507.03035 . Submitted (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  47. [56]

    and Sasaki, Y

    van Dam, W. and Sasaki, Y. Quantum Algorithms for Problems in Number Theory, Algebraic Geometry, and Group Theory. Diversi- ties in Quantum Computation and Quantum Information : 79-105 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814425988−0003

    2012 doi

  48. [57]

    and Krstic, P.S

    Wang, Y. and Krstic, P.S. Multistate Transition Dynamics by Strong Time-Dependent Perturbation in NISQ era. J. Phys. Commun.7: 075004 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1088/2399-6528/ace67a

    2023 doi

  49. [58]

    A Parallel Repetition Theorem for All Entangled Games

    Yuen, H. A Parallel Repetition Theorem for All Entangled Games. 43 rd Inter- national Colloqium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2016) 77, 1-13 (2016). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1604.04340. 128

    2016 doi arXiv

  50. [59]

    and Zhao, Z

    Zhao, L. and Zhao, Z. and Rebentrost, P. and Fitzsimons, J. Compiling basic linear algebra subroutines for quantum computers, Quantum Machine Intelligence 3: 21 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42484-021-00048-8” 129

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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