Quantum computation with indefinite causal structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One way to study the physical plausibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs) is to examine their computational power. This has been done for Deutschian CTCs (D-CTCs) and postselection CTCs (P-CTCs), with the result that they allow for the efficient solution of problems in PSPACE and PP, respectively. Since these are extremely powerful complexity classes, which are not expected to be solvable in reality, this can be taken as evidence that these models for CTCs are pathological. This problem is closely related to the nonlinearity of this models, which also allows, for example, cloning quantum states, in the case of D-CTCs, or distinguishing nonorthogonal quantum states, in the case of P-CTCs. In contrast, the process matrix formalism allows one to model indefinite causal structures in a linear way, getting rid of these effects and raising the possibility that its computational power is rather tame. In this paper, we show that process matrices correspond to a linear particular case of P-CTCs, and therefore that its computational power is upperbounded by that of PP. We show, furthermore, a family of processes that can violate causal inequalities but nevertheless can be simulated by a causally ordered quantum circuit with only a constant overhead, showing that indefinite causality is not necessarily hard to simulate.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".