MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Structure of Reversible Computation Determines the Self-Duality of Quantum Theory

2012· article· en· W2067617349 on OpenAlexaff
Markus P. Müller, Cozmin Ududec

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDuality (order theory)ComputationPhysicsQuantumQuantum mechanicsTheoretical physicsStatistical physicsComputer scienceMathematicsPure mathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predictions for measurement outcomes in physical theories are usually computed by combining two distinct notions: a state, describing the physical system, and an observable, describing the measurement which is performed. In quantum theory, however, both notions are in some sense identical: outcome probabilities are given by the overlap between two state vectors--quantum theory is self-dual. In this Letter, we show that this notion of self-duality can be understood from a dynamical point of view. We prove that self-duality follows from a computational primitive called bit symmetry: every logical bit can be mapped to any other logical bit by a reversible transformation. Specifically, we consider probabilistic theories more general than quantum theory, and prove that every bit-symmetric theory must necessarily be self-dual. We also show that bit symmetry yields stronger restrictions on the set of allowed bipartite states than the no-signalling principle alone, suggesting reversible time evolution as a possible reason for limitations of nonlocality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations93
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207