Toolbox for reconstructing quantum theory from rules on information acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop an operational approach for reconstructing the quantum theory of qubit systems from elementary rules on information acquisition. The focus lies on an observer O interrogating a system S with binary questions and S 's state is taken as O 's `catalogue of knowledge' about S . The mathematical tools of the framework are simple and we attempt to highlight all underlying assumptions. Four rules are imposed, asserting (1) a limit on the amount of information available to O ; (2) the mere existence of complementary information; (3) O 's total amount of information to be preserved in-between interrogations; and, (4) O 's `catalogue of knowledge' to change continuously in time in-between interrogations and every consistent such evolution to be possible. This approach permits a {\it constructive} derivation of quantum theory, elucidating how the ensuing independence, complementarity and compatibility structure of O 's questions matches that of projective measurements in quantum theory, how entanglement and monogamy of entanglement, non-locality and, more generally, how the correlation structure of arbitrarily many qubits and rebits arises. The rules yield a reversible time evolution and a quadratic measure, quantifying O 's information about S . Finally, it is shown that the four rules admit two solutions for the simplest case of a single elementary system: the Bloch ball and disc as state spaces for a qubit and rebit, respectively, together with their symmetries as time evolution groups. The reconstruction for arbitrarily many qubits is completed in a companion paper [P. A. Höhn and C. S. P. Wever, Phys. Rev. A 95 (2017) 012102] where an additional rule eliminates the rebit case. This approach is inspired by (but does not rely on) the relational interpretation and yields a novel formulation of quantum theory in terms of questions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".